Attach Receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uploads via multipart on update_expense (which implies a write operation) and notes that the API does not support OCR. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like requiring existing expense ownership or failure modes, but the core behavior is reasonably clear.

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 well-structured: a clear first sentence stating the action and inputs, followed by implementation details, and a note about OCR pairing. All sentences provide value, no fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with 2 parameters, and the description covers the key inputs, file type support, and the important caveat about lack of OCR. An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. A minor gap is the lack of explicit error handling or authorization requirements, but for the tool's simplicity, it's largely complete.

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 schema has only parameter names and types (expense_id: integer, image_path: string) with 0% coverage. The description explains that image_path is a local file path and mentions supported file types (image and PDF), adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't specify formats or constraints for expense_id.

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 the tool's purpose: attach a receipt image or PDF from a local file path to an existing expense. It specifies the verb (attach), resource (receipt to expense), and input types (image or PDF). This distinguishes it from other expense-related tools in the sibling list such as create_expense and update_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 implies the tool is used when uploading a receipt to an existing expense and mentions pairing with create_itemized_expense for OCR. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for other receipt-related tasks.

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