billy_match_bank_line

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full transparency burden. It explicitly labels the operation as WRITE and mandates confirm:true for execution, disclosing that the tool mutates data and requires an extra confirmation step. This adequately informs the agent of the tool's behavioral traits.

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?

The description is two concise sentences: first for purpose, second for key behavioral requirement. No unnecessary words, every sentence adds value.

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 description explains the two-phase execute pattern but does not describe the return format or success/error behavior. Given no output schema and moderate complexity, it lacks some contextual completeness, though the essential workflow is covered.

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 low (25%), with only 'confirm' described. The description adds meaning by explaining the dry-run/preview behavior tied to confirm, and clarifies subjectType values ('invoice/bill/bank payment'). However, subjectId and bankLineId remain underspecified.

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 clearly states the verb 'Reconcile' and the resource 'bank line', specifying it reconciles with an invoice/bill/bank payment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like billy_unmatch_bank_line.

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 description provides clear usage guidance: it's a WRITE operation requiring confirm:true, and implies a dry-run mode without confirm. It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools, but the confirm requirement effectively guides when to execute vs preview.

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