concur_delete_available_expenses

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

Goes well past the annotations: declares irreversibility ('Cannot be undone'), the preview of each row, the post-delete re-read of the available list to confirm, and a detailed two-mode confirmation protocol with confirmToken semantics and MCP_CONFIRM_MODE. It also flags a prompt-injection risk about text inside tool results, 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-loaded with the destructive core and scope before the operational detail, and nearly every clause carries information (irreversibility, preview, confirmation modes). The final injection-warning sentence is long and slightly repetitive in phrasing, keeping it just short of ideal.

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 two-phase write with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what gets destroyed, that it's confirmed by re-reading state, how confirmation negotiates between elicitation and token fallback, and the trust boundary on when to invoke it.

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 both parameters are already documented with the id format and the full confirmToken fallback rules. The description reinforces the confirmToken sequencing context but adds no syntax, limits, or constraints beyond what the schema states.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('Permanently delete available expenses'), with the scope qualifier 'not yet on any report' that separates it from the report-attached delete sibling, and concrete examples ('duplicate mobile captures or quick expenses'). It also names a related sibling (concur_list_available_expenses) so the agent knows where these ids come from.

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 frames when to use it (unreported/available expenses) and points to concur_list_available_expenses for obtaining ids, plus a strong gating rule that it only runs on explicit user approval after a preview. It never explicitly contrasts with the sibling concur_delete_expenses, leaving the agent to infer which delete tool applies to report-attached items.

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