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

Goes well beyond annotations: discloses the authorization requirement (kräver behörigheten reconcile), the side effect (raden sparas), and what it deliberately does NOT do (attesten ändras inte, done by a human in the app). It also describes the return payload, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loads the core action and row-preservation behavior, then layers usage, return values, side effects, and permissions in a tight sequence. Each sentence carries distinct value with no filler.

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 7-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, sibling routing, return contents (rader, avstämt belopp, differens), side effects, and permissions. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the schema (formats, units, examples, sourcing via list_companies/get_open_reconciliations). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (lägger till) and resource (manuell specifikationsrad på en avstämning/bilaga), plus the key constraint that existing rows are preserved. It explicitly names and distinguishes itself from the sibling set_bilaga_spec, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (lägga till en enstaka post, e.g. the whole closing balance to zero out the difference) and names the alternative set_bilaga_spec for the opposite case (ersätta eller tömma alla rader på en gång). Both the when and the when-not are covered.

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