create_cost

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by stating the return shape ({success, id}) and the optional order attribution behavior. Annotations already indicate this is a write operation that is not destructive, and the description is consistent. It does not disclose potential pitfalls like multi-site key requirements, but those are in the schema.

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 a single, focused sentence followed by a return-value note. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler.

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 simple create operation with complete schema documentation and an explicit return format, the description covers the essential context. It could mention requirements like site for multi-site scopes, but that is already in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently 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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameters. It does mention optional attribution to an order, which maps to order_id, but this is already in the schema. No additional parameter semantics are added.

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 ('Create') and resource ('expense record'), and clarifies optional order attribution. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_order or create_customer.

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 usage for recording an expense but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The presence of list_costs suggests a complementary role, but it is not stated.

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