Postings: unconfirm transaction posting

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it reverts state and is reversible, which is consistent and provides behavioral context beyond 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 is concise and front-loaded with the purpose and key conditions. It includes an endpoint and is well-structured, though the emoji and formatting could be slightly trimmed.

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 is a mutation with a specific condition, the description adequately covers the core behavior and condition. Without an output schema, the return value is not explained, but the tool's purpose is sufficiently clear.

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?

Parameter descriptions in the input schema are complete (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add more. The tool description does not elaborate on parameters beyond what's in the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool reverts a prior state change (unconfirms a posting) and specifies the resource (transaction postings). It distinguishes from siblings like postings_unconfirm_free and postings_unconfirm_receipt by focusing on transactions.

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 provides a condition for use ('only work if the postings are not fixed') and states it is reversible. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or advise when not to use it.

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