balance_reprocess

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the actual side effect — the PDF is re-parsed and existing account rows are updated — which is more than the annotations say. It stops short of saying whether manually adjusted rows are overwritten, which is the main residual risk for a mutation.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the operation stated first and the rationale last. Every sentence carries distinct information: action, mechanics, trigger.

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?

For a 2-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, this covers what the tool does and why you'd run it. The one meaningful omission is what happens to previously edited or manually corrected account rows on reprocess, which the agent would want before invoking.

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 100%, so both parameters (id, companyId) are already documented in the schema, including the env-var override behavior. The description contributes nothing about parameter meaning; 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Reprocess a trial balance PDF', followed by the concrete mechanics ('re-parses the PDF file and updates the account rows'). An agent can distinguish this from balance_rows/balance_list (reads) and balance_delete without opening a schema, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Useful after parser improvements' gives a clear triggering condition for when to reach for this instead of a plain read. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. after manual row edits, or if the PDF is unavailable) or name an alternative tool.

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