recompute_statement_estimates

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 key traits: idempotent, does not overwrite portal/observed amounts, only recomputes unconfirmed projections, and uses a baseline plus rolled-up modeled card inputs. This gives the agent a thorough understanding of the tool's 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 exceptionally concise, with three sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add necessary details. Every sentence adds value—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 and moderate complexity, the description covers the key aspects: conditions, behavior, and idempotency. However, it assumes domain knowledge (e.g., 'card-input rollup') and doesn't explain results or edge cases, leaving minor gaps for a complete understanding.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'baseline' without defining it or explaining 'target_obligation_id' or 'db_path.' The term 'baseline' is used but not linked to the parameter, and the other parameters lack any semantic clarification. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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's purpose: 'Fill unconfirmed statement estimates from the card-input rollup, guarded.' It specifies the resource (statement estimates) and the action (recomputing) with constraints (only unconfirmed, never overwrite portal/observed). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_statement_input_estimates' or 'reconcile_obligation_instances'.

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 conditions for use: 'Only statement instances whose amount is an unconfirmed projection are recomputed' and 'Portal/observed amounts are never overwritten.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the constraints effectively guide when to use this tool versus others, making the usage context clear.

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