concur_create_report

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

Annotations only declare the write/open-world/safe-destructive profile; the description adds substantial behavior beyond them — tenant-specific header defaults, label-based field resolution with list-item lookup, a preview enumerating fields plus still-empty required fields, the two-step confirmToken fallback, and a prompt-injection guard. That is exactly the mutation-safety context 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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose and then layers behavior in a logical order; every sentence carries information about the confirmation protocol that an agent must not miss. It is dense and slightly long, and the final prompt-injection sentence is verbose, but nothing is filler.

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 7-parameter nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description covers what it creates, how the header form is populated, what the preview returns, and the exact confirmation protocol. It also states the response shape ("the new report as Concur shows it"), which is what an output schema would otherwise have to supply.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents label-based `fields`, list-item resolution, `businessPurpose` dropdown behavior, and the confirmToken lifecycle in detail. The description restates the same label/list-item and name/reportDate semantics rather than adding new meaning, so the 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?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource ("Create a new (unsubmitted) SAP Concur expense report") and the "unsubmitted" qualifier separates it from the sibling concur_submit_report. An agent can distinguish it from concur_update_report or concur_copy_expense without inspecting either schema.

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 description gives strong conditional guidance: confirm with the user first, use the elicitation prompt when available, otherwise do the preview/confirmToken two-step and only re-call after approval. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. that concur_submit_report is the follow-up step or that concur_update_report handles existing reports), so it stops short of a full when/when-not map.

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