Receipts Unmatch Receipt

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing that the tool may create or update Monarch data, which is not captured by the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false). This warns the agent of side effects.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. However, it may be too sparse, lacking details that could fit without harming conciseness. Still, it avoids unnecessary words.

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 the tool modifies data (unmatch a receipt) and has no output schema, the description does not explain return values, error handling, or prerequisites. It is insufficient for a state-changing operation.

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 50%, but the description provides no information about any parameters. The required parameter receipt_id is not explained, and optional parameters like fields, output_mode, and session_path are not described in the description. The schema partially covers fields and output_mode, but the description does not compensate for the missing descriptions.

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 ('Unmatch receipt') and the resource, but does not differentiate from siblings like receipts_match_receipt or receipts_delete_receipt. The verb is specific and the resource is identified.

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 alternatives (e.g., receipts_match_receipt for the opposite action). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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