concur_copy_expense

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

Annotations already say this is a non-destructive write in an open world, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the two-phase confirmation flow (client prompt vs. preview + confirmToken), specifies the return value ('the new copy as Concur shows it'), and warns that receipts are not carried over. The prompt-injection caution is real behavioral context, though it is stated at length and largely duplicates the confirmToken rules already 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the confirmation behavior, then the safety caveat — a sensible order for a mutating tool. The final sentence is somewhat padded and repeats the approval requirement already implied by 'Asks the user to confirm first', costing a bit of tightness.

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 write tool with no output schema, it covers everything an agent needs: the source of the ids, what is and isn't copied, the return value, the two confirmation paths, and the injection guardrail. Nothing material is left to inference.

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%, and the schema itself already explains reportId, expenseId provenance, and the full confirmToken lifecycle, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the confirmToken fallback at a high level, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields.

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 ('Duplicate an expense') plus the exact scope ('on an unsubmitted SAP Concur report') and enumerates what carries over (type, amount, vendor, fields) and what does not (receipts). This cleanly separates it from the sibling write tools concur_create_expense and concur_update_expense without needing their schemas.

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 'unsubmitted report' condition and the duplication semantics give a clear context for when this tool applies rather than creating an expense from scratch. It stops short of explicitly naming concur_create_expense as the alternative when no source expense exists, so the when-not case is inferred rather than stated.

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