reconcile_obligation_instances

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: deterministic, idempotent, conservatively defaults (no auto-mark paid, no flag unmatched), skips card-statement-input instances, and records best match as evidence. It adds value beyond just naming the operation, though side effects on data are not explicitly stated.

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 concise with three sentences. First sentence states purpose, second details properties, third explains defaults. No redundant information; 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?

The description covers core behavior and defaults, but omits the return value (what the function returns after recording matches) and prerequisites (e.g., obligation instances must exist). For a tool with moderate complexity and no output schema, these omissions reduce completeness.

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 description must compensate. It adds meaning for the options parameter by describing auto_mark_paid and flag_unmatched_needs_review, but does not explain as_of_date or db_path. Coverage is incomplete for a 3-parameter tool, leaving significant gaps.

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 matches expected obligation instances against observed transactions, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like confirm_reconciliation_match and list_matched_obligation_instances by describing its role as the initial matching step that records evidence.

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 context on when to use the tool by explaining its deterministic, idempotent nature and conservative defaults, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like confirm_reconciliation_match. It implies usage context but does not state exclusions or prerequisites.

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