confirm_reconciliation_match

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is guarded (requires match), never auto-pays, and is reversible. These are key behavioral traits beyond the obvious mark-paid action. Slightly more detail on side effects or permissions could elevate it, but it is still strong.

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 extremely concise: three sentences that front-load the core purpose, then add usage conditions and reversibility. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and two parameters with 0% coverage, the description is incomplete regarding parameter details and return behavior. However, for a simple confirmation tool, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and reversibility adequately. Missing parameter docs bring it down.

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 add meaning for the two parameters (instance_id and db_path), but it does not. The description provides no information about what these parameters are, their formats, or how they affect behavior, leaving the schema names to do all the work.

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 tool marks a reviewed obligation instance as paid using a recorded transaction match. It uses a specific verb ('mark') and resource ('obligation instance'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'unconfirm_reconciliation_match' by noting reversibility.

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 explicitly provides usage prerequisites: requires a recorded match (run reconcile first) and notes it never auto-pays. It also mentions the alternative tool for reversal (unconfirm_reconciliation_match), giving clear guidance on when to use this tool.

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