reconcile_bank_line

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, idempotency, reversibility, required permissions, or what happens if the line is already reconciled. This is insufficient for a mutation 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 a single, compact sentence with no fluff, which aids quick reading. However, it is under-specified given the tool's complexity, so while concise, it sacrifices necessary detail.

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 tool is a mutation with three required parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description provides only the basic action. Missing are return value, prerequisites, and the meaning of num_releve beyond the schema. The description is inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly in context.

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 schema describes only num_releve with an example, leaving account_id and line_id as bare numbers. The description does not compensate, as it fails to explain the meaning or purpose of any parameter. The 33% schema coverage is not offset by any parameter-related context in the description.

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 'Marquer une ligne bancaire comme rapprochée' clearly states the action (mark as reconciled) and the resource (a bank line). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like get_bank_reconciliation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_bank_reconciliation or add_bank_transaction. The usage is only implied by the verb, with no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions.

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