complete_reconciliation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a key failure mode (unresolved difference blocks completion) and a human-in-the-loop precondition. It does not state whether completion is reversible, what state the session locks into, or any auth requirements.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the core action leads and the conditional/confirmation caveats follow in order of importance.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential call path, the failure condition, and the confirmation requirement. It could say more about post-completion state or irreversibility, but the agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 id, notes, and forceComplete are already documented with descriptions. The description reinforces the forceComplete intent ('unless forceComplete is set') but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema's own 'use with care' note; 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Complete/finish a reconciliation session'), which unambiguously identifies the target entity. It is distinguishable in intent from siblings like start_reconciliation and cancel_reconciliation, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Gives real conditional guidance: it fails when a difference remains unless forceComplete is set, and instructs confirming with the user first. It stops short of naming cancel_reconciliation or other session-management alternatives as the when-not path.

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