oc_create_expense

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate non-read-only behavior. Description adds that authentication is required and clarifies the roles of payee and account. Beyond annotations, it provides moderate additional context but lacks details on creation results or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Six sentences efficiently cover purpose, types, requirements, authentication, and a use case. No redundant information; front-loaded with the core action. Slightly longer than necessary but well-organized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of many parameters, the description covers essentials: expense types, line items, authentication, and a special case. An output schema exists, so return value explanation is not needed. Lacks details on payout or currency, but these are in the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description summarizes required line items and supported expense types, but the input schema already has descriptive property names and descriptions. The bookkeeping guidance adds marginal value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'Submit a new expense to an OpenCollective collective' with specific verb and resource, and lists supported expense types. This effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like oc_edit_expense and oc_delete_expense, which have different verbs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides usage constraints such as requiring authentication, needing at least one line item, and specifying when to use INVOICE for bookkeeping expenses. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives like oc_edit_expense or oc_process_expense.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.