Save Default Split

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it states that data is persisted locally in ~/.expensifyai/splits.json and describes the reusable template structure. It does not mention overwrite behavior for an existing name, but the local storage path and template semantics provide substantial transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a terse schema illustration and integration note. Every sentence adds useful information, with no filler or redundant restatement.

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?

For a two-parameter local persistence tool with an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, the split format, the storage location, and its relationship to create_itemized_expense. Nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining the name parameter with an example and detailing the split object's structure, including allowed type values, the among array, and the optional shares mapping. This is exactly the kind of parameter-level meaning the schema alone does not provide.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Save a reusable split template by name.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling list_default_splits and delete_default_split operations, which are the only other split-template tools.

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 clearly contextualizes usage by explaining that saved templates are 'Referenced from create_itemized_expense items via split_ref', which indicates when this tool is useful. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the integration context is clear enough.

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