concur_add_report_comment

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the write is irreversible (no delete), the audience is approvers and auditors, and a read-back verifies the comment landed on the timeline. It also discloses the two-step confirmation protocol and an explicit prompt-injection guard, which annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then consequences, then the confirmation protocol - a sensible ordering. The final sentence about prompt injection is long and defensive but earns its place for a destructive, open-world write.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains what happens after the call (timeline confirmation, fallback re-read) and what the phase-1 response contains. Nothing needed to invoke this destructive write safely 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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters including confirmToken's usage rules are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the token lifecycle ('only a repeat call with that token proceeds') but adds little that the schema does not already say, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a comment to an SAP Concur expense report') and immediately scopes the effect ('permanent, no delete', 'seen by your approvers and auditors'). No sibling tool adds comments, and the description makes that role unambiguous against concur_get_report_timeline and concur_update_report.

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?

Clearly conveys the precondition that the user must confirm first, and documents both confirmation paths (client elicitation vs. preview + confirmToken). It does not name an alternative tool, but no alternative exists in the sibling set, so the guidance is effectively complete.

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