Reconcile cash transaction

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

Discloses that it writes immediately and will be rejected if the financial year is closed, adding value beyond annotations (which only give hints). Does not mention idempotency or error behavior for already-reconciled transactions, but provides key operational traits.

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?

Two sentences with no superfluous content. The most critical information (purpose, write behavior, rejection condition) is front-loaded and concise.

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?

Covers essential purpose and constraints but lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavior if already reconciled. Given no output schema and low complexity, the description is adequate but could be more complete.

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 each parameter described. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so baseline 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 it reconciles a single cash transaction by setting the line-level reconciled flag, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'reconcile_financial_year' and 'run_account_reconciliation' by focusing on a single row.

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?

Gives context for when to use (before year closure) and a rejection condition, but does not explicitly compare to alternative reconciliation tools or state when not to use. Lacks explicit differentiation from batch reconciliation tools.

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