oc_edit_expense

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds partial update behavior but does not disclose failure modes (e.g., expense not found) or side effects. It also requires authentication, which is noted.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no unnecessary information. It is concise and easy to parse.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is adequate for basic use but lacks information on error handling, such as what happens if the expense ID does not exist. It does not leverage the output schema to explain response details.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% per context, meaning the tool description does not cover individual parameters. The description only states 'Only provided fields will be updated', which is a general behavior but does not add per-parameter meaning. The schema itself has parameter descriptions, but the tool description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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?

The description clearly states 'Edit an existing expense' with the verb 'edit' and resource 'expense', and specifies partial update behavior with 'Only provided fields will be updated'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like oc_create_expense and oc_delete_expense.

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?

The description mentions authentication and permissions, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor when not to use it. No sibling tools are referenced for comparison.

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