autotask_create_expense_report

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action ('create'). It does not mention that this is a write operation, what happens on success (e.g., returns the report ID), error scenarios, or any constraints like idempotency. The bare statement is insufficient for full 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 a single sentence of six words, containing no extraneous information. It is as concise as possible while still providing the core purpose.

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 a simple creation operation with a fully described schema, but the description omits details like return values (expected when no output schema) or common use-case context (e.g., creating a report for a specific week). It is minimally complete but not comprehensive.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, so the description adds no extra meaning. According to the guidelines, this yields a baseline score of 3.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new expense report,' using a specific verb and the resource type. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like searching, getting, or deleting expense reports, as well as creating expense items.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to create an expense report versus an expense item, or any prerequisites like needing a valid submitter ID or week-ending date format.

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