Postings: unconfirm receipt posting

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

The description discloses that this is a state-reverting WRITE, explains it is reversible, keeps the posting, and clearly says it only clears confirmation. It goes beyond the annotations by describing the side effect and precondition, though the 'restore a deleted receipt' phrase adds ambiguity.

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 longer than necessary and repeats the fixed-not-fixed condition twice, but it front-loads the most important behavioral context up front. Most sentences add useful information such as reversibility, use case, alternative, and endpoint.

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 one-parameter tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description provides the essential behavior: what is changed, when it is allowed, and what it does not do. It could clarify behavior when the posting is already unconfirmed or fixed, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter and the input schema already fully describes `receipt_id_by_customer`. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond referring to 'the receipt', so the schema carries the burden as expected at high 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?

The description clearly identifies the action: unconfirm receipt postings by receipt, and distinguishes itself from `postings_cancel` for removing a posting. The core resource and verb are unmistakable despite the slightly confusing 'restore a deleted receipt' phrase.

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?

It gives a concrete use case: send a receipt posting back to unconfirmed state for correction. It also states the precondition that postings must not be fixed and points to `postings_cancel` as the alternative for removal. It does not explicitly contrast with `postings_unconfirm_for_transaction` or `postings_unconfirm_free`, but enough guidance is present.

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