reconcile

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It states that confirmed decisions are preserved, implying re-processing may alter unconfirmed ones, but it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, what side effects occur, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the return value looks like. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full impact of invoking this tool.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the constraint about preserved decisions is stated clearly. This is an exemplary level of conciseness for a tool with no parameters.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover essential operational details. It only mentions the action and one behavioral constraint, leaving out crucial context such as what happens to non-confirmed payments, whether the operation is reversible, any prerequisites, or expected results. This incompleteness makes it difficult for an agent to call the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no meaningful information. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it also doesn't add any parameter-specific context. Given the 0-parameter baseline rule, a 4 is appropriate—the description is not lacking any necessary parameter semantics because there are none.

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 action (re-run the matcher) and the object (inbound payments), and adds that confirmed decisions are preserved. This distinguishes it from typical expense/income tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative. The verb and resource are specific enough for an agent to understand the purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where reconciliation is appropriate, nor does it reference any sibling tools. This is a clear absence of usage guidance.

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