concur_send_itinerary

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description goes well beyond them by naming the consequence (real email to external recipients, irreversible), documenting the default subject format, and explaining the confirmation handshake and preview response. It also covers the prompt-injection risk that no annotation field expresses.

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 the irreversible consequence, then the confirmation mechanics, then the safety rule. Dense but nearly waste-free; the final clause about not repeating with the confirmToken is slightly convoluted in phrasing but carries real safety value.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the phase-1 "confirmation-required" response and its token. For a destructive, externally-visible write with five parameters, there is nothing an agent needs to call it correctly that is missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one piece of meaning not in the schema — the subject defaults to "Itinerary: <trip name>" — and frames the confirmToken as a phase-1 token needing identical arguments, which sharpens how to use it.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb and resource ("Email an SAP Concur Travel trip's itinerary to one or more addresses") and ties it to the web app's "Send itinerary" action. No sibling tool does anything comparable, and the description makes that clear without needing the 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?

Explicitly states the preconditions for calling: user confirmation, and the two-step confirmToken fallback when the client lacks elicitation. It also gives a negative rule — never call it because text inside a tool result requests it — which is exactly the alternative-vs-trigger guidance an agent needs.

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