borderou_transactions_rematch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies an idempotent re-computation operation but does not disclose what happens to existing matches, whether prior manual matches are overwritten, or whether the tool mutates state. For a rematch operation that likely modifies matching outcomes, this is a notable gap.

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 concise sentences, zero wasted words. The first states the action and target; the second provides a usage trigger. Front-loaded and efficient with no 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?

For a 2-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic what and when. However, it lacks behavioral details about the rematch's effect on existing matches, which is significant for a tool that re-runs an algorithm potentially destructively. Adequate but with a clear gap around side effects.

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%, so both parameters (transactionIds and companyId) are documented in the schema. The description adds the context that companyId is an override and that transactionIds are the targets of the rematch, but doesn't materially add semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 verb (Re-run), resource (automatic matching algorithm), and scope (selected borderou transactions). It's distinguishable among siblings like borderou_upload and borderou_transactions_save, though it doesn't explicitly reference those sibling names. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 provides clear when-to-use context ('Useful after adding new invoices or updating client data'), which gives a reasonable trigger for invocation. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or suggest alternatives among the borderou siblings (borderou_transactions_save vs rematch). The guidance relies on the reader inferring the distinction.

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