set_statement_balance

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses two useful facts: the session must be in-progress (a precondition) and user confirmation is required before invoking. It does not say whether the prior balance is overwritten, what happens if the session is closed, or what permissions are needed.

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 imperative sentences, with the action and its scope front-loaded and the safety instruction second. Nothing is wasted.

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 numeric mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the state precondition, and the confirmation requirement. Return-value and error behavior are unspecified, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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% for both parameters ('Bank_ReconSession_Id to update', 'New closing statement balance'), so the schema already documents them. The description only adds the word 'closing', which is marginal beyond the schema baseline of 3.

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 and resource ('Update the closing statement balance') and scopes it to an 'in-progress reconciliation session', which separates it from unrelated statement tools like delete_statement or send_statement. It does not name a sibling alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 'in-progress reconciliation session' qualifier implies when the tool applies, and 'Confirm with the user first' gives a procedural prerequisite. There is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to alternatives such as start_reconciliation or complete_reconciliation for other session states.

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