refuse_expense_report

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

With no annotations available, the description must disclose behavioral traits but fails entirely. It does not state whether refusal is reversible, what status changes occur, whether permissions are required, or any side effects. The description is only a short phrase with zero behavioral detail.

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 extremely short but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. A four-word phrase is not a structured or informative description; it reads more like a label than a usable tool description.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter descriptions, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the refusal workflow, the consequences, or how this fits among the many expense report sibling tools, making it inadequate for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. The schema documents 'detail' as 'Motif du refus' and leaves 'id' undocumented; the description does not compensate for the 50% coverage gap or clarify how parameters relate to the refusal action.

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 'Refuser une note de frais' is a direct French translation of the tool name 'refuse_expense_report', adding no new information about the action or resource. It does not differentiate this tool from sibling actions like validate, approve, or pay expense reports.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_expense_report or approve_expense_report. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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