mf_expense_disapprove_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure for a mutating operation. It does not say whether the rejection is reversible, what status the report moves to, whether a reason/comment is accepted, 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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler and no redundancy. It is not bloated, though the terseness comes at the cost of the missing context noted elsewhere rather than being a model of efficient completeness.

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 destructive-ish state-changing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of side effects or prerequisites, the definition is too thin. An agent has no information about consequences, idempotency, or error conditions.

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%, so both parameters (office_id, report_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, constraint, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: '経費申請を却下します' (reject the expense report). It is unambiguous about the action, but it never distinguishes itself from the obvious sibling mf_expense_approve_report, which shares the same resource and inverse operation.

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_approve_report, nor any precondition (e.g., the report must be in a pending state). 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.