Postings: unconfirm transaction posting

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: the operation is reversible, it only clears confirmation rather than deleting the posting, and it only works while the posting is not fixed. The 'restore a deleted receipt' parenthetical is an inaccurate behavioral claim for this specific tool, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 repeats the fixed-posting condition twice ('This will only work if the postings are not fixed' and 'Only works while the posting is not fixed'), and overlaps 'Remove postings...' with 'Use to send a transaction posting back...' The opening line also adds padded, partly off-topic 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?

With one fully documented parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering the write/idempotent/non-destructive profile, the description provides the essential invocation context: what it does, when it works, and which alternative to use for deletion. The out-of-scope receipt-restoration mention is the main thing keeping it from being fully clean.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter, transaction_id_by_customer, which is already documented as 'The id_by_customer of the transaction.' The description merely refers generically to a 'specified transaction' and adds no new parameter-level meaning.

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 core action is clear: 'Remove postings for a specified transaction by unconfirming them' and it explicitly distinguishes itself from deletion with 'To remove the posting itself, use postings_cancel.' However, the opening parenthetical 'restore a deleted receipt' references behavior that seems outside this transaction-posting tool's scope, slightly muddying the purpose.

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 says to use this tool when a transaction posting needs to be returned to the unconfirmed state for correction, and it gives the precondition that the postings must not be fixed. It also explicitly routes removal of the posting itself to postings_cancel, providing a clear alternative.

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