reconcile_staging

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the process: fetching recent N staging records, looking up target records via sys_target_sys_id, and comparing mapped fields. Return types (per-record diffs, per-field accuracy, missing targets) are mentioned. 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?

The description is concise with three well-structured sentences. Purpose is stated first, followed by context, then details on behavior and output. No redundant information.

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 complexity (nested objects, multiple parameters, no output schema), the description provides a good overview of the tool's function and output. It explains the comparison process and what is returned, though it could elaborate on how transform_rules and date_fields affect the comparison.

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 67%. The description adds value by explaining that sample_size controls how many records are checked and that field_mappings define the fields to compare. It also introduces the concept of sys_target_sys_id, which is not a parameter but aids understanding. Missing explicit elaboration on transform_rules and date_fields, but overall adds 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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: comparing staging and target tables to verify transform map correctness. It also explains its role as the staging-to-target leg of a three-layer quality check, distinguishing it from sibling tools like reconcile_migration.

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 transform map to check correctness, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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