reconcile_order

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so the description must carry most of the behavioral load, and it does: it discloses the direction of data movement in both directions and the precondition that native orders are not reconcilable. It stops short of noting permission requirements or side effects on channel-side data.

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 tightly written sentences that front-load the action and direction of sync, followed by the eligibility caveat and an example. The stray '[#ac6b88]' token at the end is noise that slightly mars an otherwise clean structure.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by mentioning the reconcilable=false outcome and the sync semantics. For a two-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete, though it omits any note on failure modes or what a successful reconcile returns.

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%, and the schema already explains workspace scoping and that order_uuid comes from list_my_orders / get_order_details. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond this, 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?

States a specific verb (reconcile) plus resource (order), and spells out the bidirectional data flow: pull payment/cancellation FROM the channel, push fulfillment status/tracking TO it. This is precise enough to separate it from siblings like sync_orders or sync_to_channel.

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 a clear use case ('re-sync an order that drifted, e.g. tracking not relayed to the storefront') and an explicit eligibility rule ('only sales-channel orders can be reconciled; native orders return reconcilable=false'). It does not, however, name the neighbouring sync_orders / sync_to_channel / unsync_from_channel tools as alternatives, so the routing guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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