oc_process_expense

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context by stating the permission requirement ('admin/host permissions'). It does not contradict annotations and provides additional operational clarity beyond what annotations offer.

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 plus an itemized list of actions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, uses minimal words, and every element (actions list, permission note) earns its place. No wasted text.

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 that an output schema exists and the tool's core behavior is well-described (actions, permissions), the description is largely complete. It could mention that the tool modifies expense state, but that is implicit from 'process' and the listed actions. The context signals indicate low parameter count and no complex nesting, so the description adequately covers the necessary information.

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 input schema already includes descriptions for all parameters (id, action, message, legacy_id), so the description does not need to add much. The description simply repeats the action values, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is high and the description adds minimal extra meaning.

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 uses a specific verb 'Process an expense' and lists concrete actions (approve, reject, pay, hold, release, etc.). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like oc_create_expense, oc_get_expense, and oc_delete_expense by focusing on state-changing actions on an existing 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 states 'Requires authentication and admin/host permissions', which provides necessary context for when this tool can be used. It implies usage for performing actions on an expense rather than creating or reading, but does not explicitly exclude alternative scenarios or mention alternatives. Still, it is clear enough to guide selection.

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