mf_expense_approve_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether approval is irreversible, what permissions/scope are required, whether a report can be re-approved, or what state change results. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the verb+resource are front-loaded. It is terse but not padded.

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 and no output schema, the description should disclose approval prerequisites, irreversibility, and required auth scope; it provides none of these, leaving the agent to guess at the workflow.

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 100%, with both office_id (事業者ID) and report_id (経費申請ID) documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further parameter meaning, but the schema already does the work.

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 verb (承認します / approve) and resource (経費申請 / expense report), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling mf_expense_disapprove_report or mention the report-listing/retrieval siblings it depends on.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus mf_expense_disapprove_report, nor any prerequisite (e.g., that the report must exist, be pending, or be fetched first via mf_expense_get_report). The agent must infer the approval workflow entirely.

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