purch_unlink_reimbursementUndo a reimbursement tie, with a reason. The money in goes back to how it was reviewed; the expenses wait again. For a tie that was wrong: say so to the person, since the expenses count as theirs again until tied correctly. Effects: tie undone; the money in back to its earlier review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | Why. | |
| reimbursement_id | Yes | e.g. RB-0001. An existing purch_reimbursement id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds useful state-effect context: the tie is undone, money in returns to its earlier review, and expenses wait again. It still does not discuss permissions or failure modes, but it meaningfully supplements the 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 purpose is front-loaded, but the effects are stated twice across the second and fourth sentences. The sentence about telling the person is useful workflow context but adds some verbosity without much tool-call clarity.
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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains the action, required reason, and resulting state changes. It could say more about error behavior when a tie is already undone, but no output schema exists and the core workflow is covered.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reiterates that a reason is required but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Undo a reimbursement tie." It clearly distinguishes this from recording a reimbursement, but it does not explicitly name close siblings such as purch_unlink_refund or purch_unpair_transfer.
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?
It implies usage in the line "For a tie that was wrong" and gives related guidance about informing the person. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name an alternative tool for a different case.
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.