accounting_reopen_periodReopen a closed accounting period: void its closing entry(ies) and lift the write lock so entries dated inside the window can be edited and the period re-closed. Audit-logged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| periodId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. | |
| companyId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful detail beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it voids closing entries, lifts the write lock, allows editing, permits re-closing, and is audit-logged. This explains the consequences of the destructive action, increasing transparency. No contradiction with annotations.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Reopen a closed accounting period') and then provides essential details. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.
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 mutation with two parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: the scope, the side effects (voiding entries, lifting lock), and the audit trail. It does not mention prerequisites like period must be closed, but that is implied. Overall, it is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.
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 input schema already documents both parameters (companyId and periodId) with full coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at baseline.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to reopen a closed accounting period by voiding its closing entries and lifting the write lock. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like accounting_close_period (the inverse operation) and read-only period queries.
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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a closed accounting period needs to be reopened so entries inside its date window can be edited. It implies the alternative of leaving the period closed and contrasts with close_period, though it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or list alternative tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tool pairs are nearly identical (formation_extract_cap_table / formation_extract_cap_table_ocr; formation_start_formation / formation_create_formation), and several tools lack descriptions, making selection ambiguous. The scale of 202 tools with overlapping summaries (e.g., multiple cap-table summary tools) compounds the confusion.
Dominant snake_case `module_verb_noun` pattern, but with notable deviations: `captable_send_safe_for_signature` uses an inconsistent abbreviation, `check_company_name_availability` lacks a module prefix, and `get_list_` vs `list_` prefixes are mixed. Readable but not fully consistent.
202 tools is far beyond any reasonable surface for a single server, even a broad platform. The sheer number overwhelms and makes tool discovery impractical; many tools are peripheral (ads metrics) to the core formation purpose.
The domain appears well covered: formation flows, cap-table lifecycle (import, close, simulate), accounting (journal entries, periods, schedules), cards, documents, and transactions all have CRUD or lifecycle operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no card deletion, no counterparty creation), but they are unlikely to cause dead ends.