Postings: unconfirm receipt posting

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency. The description adds context: it reverts state, is reversible, and requires postings not fixed. No contradictions.

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?

Description is fairly concise with emoji and bold for emphasis, but includes some redundancy (e.g., 'unconfirm receipt posting' appears twice). Still efficient overall.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and available annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the operation, condition, and endpoint. Lacks return value info but that's not expected without output schema.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description references receipt_id_by_customer but adds no significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 it unconfirms postings for a receipt, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like postings_unconfirm_free and postings_unconfirm_transaction by the resource type (receipt), but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 mentions a condition ('only work if postings are not fixed'), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like postings_unconfirm_free or postings_unconfirm_transaction.

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