reconcile_operation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool never retries, returns UNKNOWN when inspection is needed, may report partial effects under FAILED, and does not mutate the MD scene. This is detailed and honest about observable behavior.

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 three compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and return values, then adds the parameter instruction and caveats. 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?

For a single-parameter read-only reconciliation tool with no output schema, the description provides all needed context: purpose, input source, return statuses, failure semantics, and non-mutation guarantee. An agent can correctly select and call this tool without additional information.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining that the operation_id must come from the original call, which is the critical semantic detail an agent needs beyond the bare schema definition. The parameter is simple, and the description fully covers its meaning.

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 states a specific action with a clear resource: reading a durable MD completion receipt and outputting evidence. It further defines the return statuses (SUCCEEDED/FAILED/UNKNOWN), which makes the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like ping or inspect_sewing.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: after an original operation, passing the operation_id from that call. It also gives guidance on interpreting FAILED and UNKNOWN outcomes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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