Execute a reviewed bookkeeping proposal once after verifying its hash and authorization, blocking writes on unknown outcomes.
Execute the exact reviewed proposal once. Default approval uses the MCP client form; a supplied authorization note is only an audit assertion. Unknown outcomes block further writes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| planId | Yes | ||
| expectedHash | Yes | ||
| authorization | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the approval flow, clarifies that a supplied authorization note is only an audit assertion, and warns that unknown outcomes block further writes. These are valuable operational details not present in the structured 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?
Three dense sentences, each earning its place. The core action is front-loaded, followed by critical authorization and failure behavior. No filler or redundancy.
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?
The description covers key behavioral aspects such as idempotency, authorization, and failure blocking, which is strong for a destructive tool. However, with no output schema and two undocumented required parameters, an agent still lacks enough detail to fully understand expectedHash and planId semantics.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially addresses the 'authorization' parameter by explaining its audit-only role, but it does not explain planId or expectedHash, leaving two required parameters semantically unexplained.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Execute the exact reviewed proposal once.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like billy_batch_execute by emphasizing single, exact execution of a reviewed proposal.
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 implies usage after a proposal has been reviewed and approved, and it clarifies the authorization mechanism. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as billy_batch_execute, nor does it mention exclusions or recovery paths.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.