budget_reconcile

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-destructive, idempotent write; the description adds the important boundary that it records balances without touching the ledger, plus a data-integrity constraint against deriving actuals from expected values. It does not explain the request_id idempotency mechanism or what happens on a duplicate submission, which would complete the picture.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds a distinct piece of information (purpose, input constraint, side-effect boundary). No filler or repetition.

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 and zero schema description coverage on a nested four-parameter mutation, the description should carry more weight than three sentences. It omits parameter semantics, the return behavior, and how idempotent replay resolves, leaving an agent able to guess intent but not call it correctly with confidence.

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% across four parameters, including a nested 'actual' object with daily/flex/reserve strings, a period, and a request_id. The description says nothing about format, currency units, period syntax, or that request_id is the idempotency key, so it fails to compensate for the empty schema documentation.

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?

Clear verb+resource: records a user's explicitly supplied real balances, which distinguishes it from the transaction-recording or pool-adjustment siblings. It does not name any sibling explicitly, but the scope ('real balances' vs expected values, no automatic ledger adjustment) is specific enough to identify the operation.

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 prohibition on fabricating actuals gives a clear usage rule for what values to pass, and 'Does not automatically adjust the ledger' implies a follow-up step exists elsewhere. It never names that follow-up tool (e.g., budget_adjust_pool) or states when to prefer this over budget_record/budget_settle, so routing is left to inference.

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