concur_move_available_expenses_to_report

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them: irreversibility, what the preview shows, the post-write re-read of both the report and the available list, and the elicitation-vs-confirmToken fallback. The prompt-injection warning is a genuine behavioral constraint an agent needs before invoking 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?

Front-loaded with the action and effect, then irreversibility, then the confirmation flow — the ordering matches what an agent needs to decide. It is dense but slightly repetitive about confirmation and injection safety, which costs a point but not readability.

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, externally-visible mutation with no output schema, the description covers reversibility, side effects, confirmation handshake, and follow-up state. An agent has everything needed to call it safely and interpret the response.

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 per-parameter descriptions are already thorough, so the schema carries most of the load. The description still adds value by framing confirmToken as a phase-2-only, never-invented, never-reused value tied to the confirmation-required response, which reinforces the semantics beyond the field text.

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 ('Move available expenses ... onto an unsubmitted SAP Concur report'), enumerates the source objects (card transactions, e-receipts, mobile captures), and points at concur_list_available_expenses so the agent can distinguish production from listing. The post-condition ('where they become expenses') removes ambiguity about the result.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage to unsubmitted reports, names the sibling that enumerates the source items, and warns that there is no inverse operation in Concur so removal later must use expense deletion. It also spells out the confirmation protocol and the exact conditions under which the write may proceed, leaving nothing to inference.

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