concur_upload_slots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces rather than contradicts them with 'Changes nothing in Concur'. Beyond the annotations it adds genuinely useful behavior: the URLs expire in 30 minutes, each slot carries a prebuilt curl command that must send exactly the shown Content-Type, and the tool requires a blob store provided by a hosted deployment.

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?

Purpose and constraints are front-loaded in the first clause, and every sentence contributes something actionable (formats, workflow, expiry, side effects, prerequisite). It is dense but contains no filler; the only cost is a single long paragraph that mixes purpose, workflow, and environment notes rather than separating them.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value — and it does, describing slots containing a curl command and a blobKey. Together with the expiry, size limits, and deployment prerequisite, nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool 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 coverage is 100%, so filename and mimeType are already documented in the input schema and the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by adding meaning the schema lacks — the accepted file formats, the 25 MB per-file limit, and the at-most-10-per-call cap that contextualizes the array parameter.

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 ('Get upload URLs for receipt files') and immediately bounds it with concrete constraints (png/jpg/jpeg/pdf, 25 MB each, max 10 per call), making it clearly distinct from the sibling concur_upload_receipt, which it names explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('this is how to upload to a hosted (remote) server, which cannot read files on your machine') and an implicit exclusion for local/stdio deployments that can read files directly. It also spells out the two-step workflow — run the slot's curl command, then call concur_upload_receipt with the returned blobKey.

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