concur_update_report

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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses that only changed fields are sent, that a preview shows each field from → to, that the response is the post-update report as Concur renders it, and describes the confirmToken/elicitation mechanics referenced via MCP_CONFIRM_MODE. It also carries an explicit prompt-injection guard about not writing on the basis of text inside a tool result, which is material behavior for a mutating tool.

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 purpose and the changed-fields-only behavior, then flows into preview, return value, confirmation, and safety. Every sentence carries information, though the closing security sentence is long and could be tightened without loss.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value ('the report as Concur shows it afterwards'), the preview semantics, the confirmation loop, and the injection hazard. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely and correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema, including the labeled `fields` map and the confirmToken contract. The description restates the field list but adds no new syntax, resolution rules, or fallback semantics beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific verb and resource: change an unsubmitted Concur report's header, and enumerates the affected fields (name, date, business purpose, comment, other labeled header fields). The 'unsubmitted' qualifier cleanly separates it from concur_submit_report, concur_recall_report, and concur_update_expense without needing to name them.

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?

Clear about the applicable state (unsubmitted reports only) and fully documents the confirmation protocol, including when the two-step confirmToken path applies versus elicitation. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the precondition plus the confirmation gating makes the when-to-use context unambiguous.

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