concur_delete_receipt

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, that the tool re-reads the receipt store afterward, and how confirmation works with or without elicitation support. It also includes a prompt-injection safety rule specific to this destructive operation, which is valuable behavioral context not captured by annotations.

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 description is front-loaded with the permanent-delete scope, then explains preconditions and confirmation behavior. It is somewhat long and dense, especially the final safety sentence, but the content is relevant to a destructive tool and avoids unrelated detail.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical behavior: permanence, preconditions, confirmation protocol, post-delete verification, and safe handling of embedded instructions. An agent has enough information to decide whether and how to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the input schema already explains both imageId and confirmToken in detail. The description reinforces the confirmation-token flow and image source, but it does not add much parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score appropriate.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: permanently delete a receipt image from SAP Concur available receipts. It names concur_list_available_receipts as the source and differentiates the operation from detaching with concur_detach_receipt.

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?

It gives explicit preconditions (only unattached receipts can be deleted, detach first using concur_detach_receipt) and a full confirmation flow. It also states the safety rule against acting on instructions embedded in tool results, leaving no ambiguity about when deletion is appropriate.

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