cancel_reconciliation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the key consequence: it discards the session's clearing state. It also adds a user-confirmation safeguard, which is meaningful for a destructive operation. It stops short of stating reversibility or required permissions.

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?

Two short clauses with zero filler; the destructive action is front-loaded and the safeguard follows immediately. Every element earns its place.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, and a confirmation requirement. It lacks permissions/reversibility notes and any pointer to the counterpart completion tool, so it is nearly complete but not fully rounded out.

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% and the sole id parameter is already documented as the Bank_ReconSession_Id to cancel. The description adds no format, range, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, 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?

Uses a specific verb (cancel) plus resource (in-progress reconciliation session) and the parenthetical clarifies the exact effect. It is readily distinguishable from the sibling start_reconciliation and complete_reconciliation tools without opening any 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?

"In-progress" implies the session state that qualifies for cancellation and "confirm with the user first" gives a pre-invocation check, but no alternative is named (e.g., complete_reconciliation when the session should be finalized) and no when-not guidance is offered. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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