reconcile_lines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutating action ('reconcile') but does not describe side effects, error behavior when preconditions are violated, or whether it returns any output. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise sentences with an example and a condition, containing no redundant information. Every sentence 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?

The tool is simple with a single parameter, and the description covers the core action and key precondition. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits return behavior, failure modes, and potential interaction with sibling tools like search_unreconciled_lines, leaving the description slightly incomplete.

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 0%, and the description only clarifies that line_ids are 'account.move.line ids'. It adds minimal value beyond the parameter name, omitting item type, format, or any constraints beyond the partner/account requirement. With only one parameter, the low coverage is not fully compensated.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reconcile') and resource ('account.move.line ids'), with a concrete example ('a payment line against an invoice line'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like search_unreconciled_lines, which only search for lines rather than reconcile them.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (reconciling lines) and states a key precondition (same partner and reconcilable account). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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