expensify_mark_reports_reimbursed

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

Description adds beyond annotations: confirms it writes (consistent with readOnlyHint=false), warns of destructiveHint, and adds critical info about dry-run mode and API rejection of non-approved reports. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences followed by a brief note. Front-loaded with key action and constraints. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, description fully covers behavior: dry-run preview, precondition (approved state), side effect (records external payment), and API limitation (only transition). Complete for a 2-parameter tool.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. Description does not add additional parameter-level detail but provides relevant context linking reportIDList to approved reports. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema carries the burden.

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?

Clearly states the action: mark approved reports as reimbursed, records external payment, does not move money or approve. Distinguishes from other actions by specifying it's the only supported report-status transition.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: only reports already in Approved state; non-approved will be rejected. Mentions dry-run is ON, so preview only. Provides clear context on when not to use (e.g., for reports not yet approved).

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