set_reconcile_state

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly, destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds the requirement that reconcile_date is mandatory for state 'y' and defaults to today, which is not in the schema or annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful operational detail, though it doesn't disclose other potential side effects (e.g., clearing the date when setting 'n'). This is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 sentence stating the purpose, followed by a clean args list. Every part is necessary; no filler. The structure is front-loaded with the main action, and parameter explanations are concise and directly usable.

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 mutation tool with an output schema (not shown but present) and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is largely sufficient. It explains all parameters and the date rule. Minor missing context like behavior when clearing reconcile_date is not critical. Overall complete for the complexity level.

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 only 33% (only split_guid has a description). The description compensates by explaining allowed values for state ('n', 'c', 'y') and the ISO date format and requirement for reconcile_date. This goes beyond the schema which defines them as generic strings. The split_guid description repeats the schema but that's fine. Substantial value added.

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 'Set the reconciliation state for a split' – a specific verb (set), resource (reconciliation state), and object (a split). This distinguishes it from siblings like reconcile_account (which likely reconciles a whole account) and get_reconciliation_status (which reads state). No ambiguity.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention reconcile_account for bulk operations or get_reconciliation_status for reading. The state values (n/c/y) give some context but not selection criteria. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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