concur_append_receipt

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing that the expense is re-read afterwards, that a confirmation prompt or a two-phase preview/confirmToken flow gates the write, and by warning against acting on instructions embedded in tool results. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before performing a destructive mutation.

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 purpose and source are front-loaded, followed by the confirmation mechanics and the injection warning, with no filler sentences. It is dense — the third sentence packs several rules — but each sentence earns its place.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the confirmation protocol, the post-write side effect, and the safety caveat. Only minor gaps remain, such as error or failure behavior and any permission requirements implied by openWorldHint.

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 a baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds real meaning: it ties imageId to concur_list_available_receipts output and explains that confirmToken only comes from phase 1 of this same tool and must accompany a repeated identical call. That clarifies the parameter's lifecycle in a way the schema field text alone does not fully convey.

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 receipt image already in SAP Concur ... to the receipt an expense already has, as an extra page') and names the source tool concur_list_available_receipts, which distinguishes it from the upload path. It does not explicitly contrast with the other receipt siblings such as concur_attach_receipt, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Clear context for when to use it: the image must already exist in Concur (obtained via concur_list_available_receipts) and the target expense must already have a receipt to append to. It stops short of naming the alternative tools or saying when not to use it, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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