scf_set_reconciliation_actions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write nature, admin role, the destructive replace behavior, and the importance of sending the full list. It doesn't mention reversibility or response format, but for a write tool this is good transparency.

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 no unnecessary words. The core purpose and the critical replace behavior are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to grasp quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of a write operation, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, admin role, replace semantics, and allowed actions. The schema handles parameter details fully. It could mention that this is a prerequisite step before applying, but the sibling tool list implies that. Overall, sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so all parameters are thoroughly documented. The description's mention of the three actions only restates the enum values in the schema. The 'send complete list' warning appears in both the description and the actions parameter schema, so the description adds minimal new 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 the specific verb 'record decisions' and the resource 'reconciliation run', and explicitly notes it is a write operation for admin role. It also lists the three allowed actions (migrate, retain, retire_only), which distinguishes it from other reconciliation tools like apply, rollback, or cancel.

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 clearly warns that the action list REPLACES the run's planned actions, so the agent knows to send the complete list. It implies when to use this setter versus later apply/rollback tools, and the admin role requirement is stated, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools.

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