reconcile_bank_movement

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; the 'WRITE:' prefix usefully signals mutation. However it says nothing about permissions, reversibility, side effects on balances, or error behavior, deferring instead to an external API reference link.

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?

Two compact sentences with the write nature and core purpose front-loaded, and no filler. The parenthetical about the replaced tool earns its place by aiding tool selection.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested verbatim payload, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the operation and where to find the body format. It omits what a successful reconciliation returns and any guardrails an agent needs before mutating financial records.

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 adds that `data` is sent verbatim as the request body and points to the Tesorería → Conciliar reference for its structure. That extra pointer is genuinely useful for a nested-object payload, though the payload fields themselves remain external.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('reconciles a bank movement against documents/entries') and flags it as a write operation up front. It also distinguishes itself from the deprecated experimental reconcile_bank_transaction, though it doesn't differentiate from live siblings like create_bank_movement or list_bank_movements.

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 only conditional guidance is 'replaces the experimental reconcile_bank_transaction from the internal API when v2 is enabled', which gives a version-selection rule. There is no explicit statement of when to reconcile vs. use related movement/payment tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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