reconcile_movement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action ('manually match') but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it creates a record), authorization needs, reversibility, or any other behavioral traits beyond the immediate operation.

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: a one-sentence summary followed by a clear Args list. Every word is necessary, and the structure front-loads the purpose. No redundant or extraneous content.

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 a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. However, it lacks any mention of the outcome or return value, which is important for an agent to understand what the tool produces upon success or failure.

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 description explicitly explains both parameters in a structured Args section: movement_id is a 'bank movement UUID' and document_id is an 'invoice or purchase UUID'. This adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which only provides type and title. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensation is valuable, though no further format or validation details are given.

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's purpose: 'Manually match a bank movement to an invoice/purchase document.' It uses a specific verb ('match') and identifies both resources involved. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'reconciliation_board' or 'list_bank_movements' by specifying the exact action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'reconciliation_board', which might perform similar matching automatically. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for appropriate usage.

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