Revalue Lightyear USD Pool

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

Annotations already flag a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write, and the description adds real substance beyond them: dry-run default, plan_handle-backed approval, journal ids in a stated format (LY-FX:<account>:USD:<as_of>), journal-free checkpoints when the difference is zero, and the fact that the opening mode books nothing. It stops short of saying what happens on failure, partial writes, or how a 'review' is surfaced or cleared.

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 substance is front-loaded, but the prose is a dense run-on with a broken first sentence (a sentence fragment followed by a missing space before 'mode'), embedded Estonian account names, and no paragraph or bullet separation for the two modes. Every clause carries information, yet the packaging makes it hard to scan under time pressure.

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 an 11-parameter destructive financial tool with no output schema, the description covers outcomes (journals, checkpoints) well but says nothing about what a dry run returns or how the agent should present the review to the owner. It also references 'target_eur' and 'ICSUSSDP' without linking them to any supplied parameter, leaving the agent to infer where target_eur comes from.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: it pins expected_usd_holding to revalue mode and to the replayed USD, confirms fx_account default 8500, and ties as_of to the ECB rate date. It leaves undefined the 'target_eur' concept it references, which is not a parameter in the schema at all.

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 first sentence identifies the specific resource (Lightyear USD cash-fund pool) and the description makes the operation concrete by splitting it into two well-defined modes: opening checkpoint creation and ECB-rate revaluation with a booked journal. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as book_lightyear_trades or parse_lightyear_statement, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

States mode 'opening' is once-per-pool and mode 'revalue' is the default, that DRY RUN is the default, and that the owner must be shown the carrying-value/target_eur difference before approval. It also gives a clear exclusionary principle ("anything unproven is a review, never a plug"), but it never routes the agent to sibling tools or states prerequisites such as the statement having been parsed first.

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