Set or change a business-travel expense claim's status to submitted, on hold, approved, partially approved, or rejected, and add an optional note for audit context.
(Mock) Set claim status: submitted, on_hold, approved, partially_approved or rejected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| claim_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The '(Mock)' prefix is honest about the tool being a demo stub, but nothing is said about whether status transitions are validated, whether the change is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what note does — major gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the enumeration of statuses is the most useful information and it is placed immediately after the verb.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain side effects, the role of the note field, and what is returned on success or invalid input. Only the status value set is covered, leaving the definition substantially incomplete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by enumerating the five valid status values that the schema does not constrain with an enum. However, claim_id (required) and note (optional, default empty) get no explanation at all, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.
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 names a specific verb+resource (set claim status) and enumerates the exact accepted values, so an agent knows precisely what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like check_claim, triage_claims, or draft_decision, which prevents a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as check_claim or triage_claims, and no preconditions (e.g. whether a claim must exist, whether a decision must be drafted first). The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.