Receipts Unmatch Receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds that the call 'may create or update Monach data,' which is relevant side-effect context. However, it does not specify what data can be created or updated or provide additional behavioral caveats.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no filler. The side-effect warning about creating or updating Monach data earns its place as a behavioral caveat.

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 simple one-required-parameter tool, the description plus schema is minimally callable. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as the receipt needing to be currently matched, and does not explain consequences beyond a generic update/create warning.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The schema documents fields and output_mode, while receipt_id is self-evident from the property title and tool purpose, so the lack of description-level param detail is adequate, though not enriched.

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 names a specific operation ('Unmatch receipt') and is clearly distinct from receipts_match_receipt by the verb. It mostly restates the title, though, and does not explain the concept of unmatching beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is given about when to unmatch a receipt, what state the receipt must be in, or how this differs from receipts_update_receipt or receipts_match_receipt. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'Unmatch'.

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