Reject an expense report with a required reason to block invalid submissions and maintain accurate expense records.
Reject an expense report with a reason
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| reason | 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 must disclose behavioral traits on its own. 'Reject' implies a mutating action, but the description does not say whether the rejection is reversible, what status/side effects result, whether notifications or approval flows are triggered, or what permissions are required.
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 one short sentence that front-loads the action and the required reason. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of context. It is too thin on behavior, prerequisites, and expected outcome for a state-changing operation, even though the parameter list is small.
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%, and the description only explains that a 'reason' is included; it does not define the id parameter or its format. The agent can infer id identifies the report, but this relies on convention rather than explicit documentation.
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 states a specific action ('Reject'), a resource ('expense report'), and the required qualifier ('with a reason'), so an agent can tell this is the rejection action rather than a generic update. It does not explicitly contrast with related siblings such as boond_expenses_certify or boond_expenses_update, but the verb+object pair is sufficiently distinctive.
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 use case is implied: pick this tool when an expense report needs to be rejected. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., report status, permissions), and no alternative such as expenses_update or expenses_certify is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.