borderou_transactions_rematch

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description needn't repeat safety. It adds that the tool recomputes matches, but does not explain what happens to existing/manual matches or what is returned, leaving key side-effect detail unspecified.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by one useful trigger condition. No repetitive or irrelevant text.

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 simple 2-parameter mutation, the description covers purpose and a usage scenario, while annotations and schema cover safety and parameters. It omits return/response behavior, which is not covered by an output schema, so it is nearly complete but not fully.

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 both companyId and transactionIds documented in the schema. The description only implies selecting transactions via 'selected borderou transactions' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb ('Re-run') and resource ('automatic matching algorithm on selected borderou transactions'), clearly separating it from sibling update/save/list tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Provides a concrete usage context: after adding new invoices or updating client data. It does not state exclusions or name alternatives, so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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