reconcile_transfers

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses idempotency, preservation of confirmed links, recomputation of the rest, and the return format (counts of inferred/needs-confirm/unmatched plus promotions/downgrades). It could mention any potential side effects or resource usage, but overall it is transparent.

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 with no wasted words. The purpose, idempotency, and usage timing are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 parameters and an output schema (though not shown), the description explains the return counts and when to use the tool. It could elaborate on 'promotions and downgrades' but is still sufficiently complete for an agent to decide.

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 schema coverage is 100% irrelevant. The description adds context about the tool's behavior and return values, which is valuable beyond the trivial schema.

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 explicitly states the tool rebuilds internal-transfer links from the archive and is idempotent. It distinguishes from siblings like confirm_transfer (for individual confirmation) and list_transfers (for viewing), making the purpose clear and specific.

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?

It advises running after a sync so list_transfers reflects latest data, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives by name, which would make it a 5.

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