set_reconcile_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It appropriately discloses that reconcile_date defaults to today and is required for 'y', which is useful behavior context. However, it doesn't state return values, whether this mutates an existing transaction, or any prerequisites (e.g., account must be reconciled). The mutation nature ('Set') is clear, but richer behavior context would help.

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 compact and efficiently structured, with a one-line purpose statement followed by a clean Args block. Each parameter line adds information. No wasted words. Slightly more behavioral context (return/effects) could be added without bloating it, but the current structure is well-front-loaded.

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 an output schema (so return format need not be explained) and a modest 3-parameter surface, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and conditional requirements well. The state enum values and reconcile_date requirement are the key knowledge an agent needs, and both are present. A tiny bit more about what 'reconcile' means or side effects would round it out, but it's quite complete for the complexity.

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 only 33% (only split_guid has a description). The description meaningfully adds to the schema: it documents the valid state enum values ('n'/'c'/'y'), specifies the date format (ISO YYYY-MM-DD), explains when reconcile_date is required, and notes the default behavior. This substantially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Set the reconciliation state for a split.' It clearly states the action (set state) and target (a split), and distinguishes from siblings like get_reconciliation_status and get_unreconciled_splits which are read operations, and reconcile_account which operates at account level rather than split level.

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 Args section provides clear usage context, including the valid state values ('n', 'c', 'y'), the requirement that reconcile_date is required for 'y', and the default behavior (defaults to today). It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this vs alternatives, but the domain context is clear enough.

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