Confirm Transaction

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

The description reveals important behavioral traits: the API rejection message for missing clients_id, auto-resolution for invoices, and the requirement for related_sub_id when accounts have dimensions. This adds significant context beyond annotations, which only indicate destructiveHint=true.

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 concise with three sentences, each providing essential information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently covers edge cases without redundancy.

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 has no output schema and three parameters, the description covers key scenarios (missing clients_id, dimensioned accounts). It does not explain what the function returns on success, but for a confirmation action this is often implicit. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the sub_id requirement for dimensioned accounts and the clients_id logic. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, aiding correct usage.

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 tool confirms a bank transaction with distribution rows, distinguishing it from other confirm tools like confirm_journal or confirm_sale_invoice. The verb 'confirm' and resource 'bank transaction' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to pass clients_id (for transactions without it, especially CAMT imports) and when it's auto-resolved (invoice distributions). It explains requirements for distributions and sub_id, helping the agent avoid errors. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools, but the sibling list is extensive.

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