pay_expense_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, required permissions, whether the action is reversible, or what happens to related data (e.g., payment creation). This leaves significant ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and target state. It contains no unnecessary words and is appropriate in size for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given that this is a state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the effects of the action, required conditions (e.g., report status), or return behavior, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly in a workflow context.

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?

The schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions (date_paye, fk_account, mode_reglement_id), but the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. The 'id' parameter is left undocumented, and the description does not clarify how the parameters relate to the action of marking as paid. Overall, it neither compensates for gaps nor contradicts the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Marquer' (mark) plus a resource 'note de frais' (expense report) and the target state 'comme payée' (as paid). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_expense_report, approve_expense_report, and refuse_expense_report.

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?

The description implies the tool is used to change the expense report status to paid, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as prior validation or approval. There is no explicit exclusion or workflow context.

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