Saves selected borderou transaction matches by creating payment records and updating invoice payment status for chosen transaction IDs.
Save and persist selected borderou transaction matches. Creates payment records for matched transactions and updates invoice payment status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companyId | No | Company UUID override (uses active company if not set) | |
| transactionIds | Yes | Array of transaction IDs to save |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the side effects — payment records are created and invoice payment status is mutated — but says nothing about repeat-call behavior (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or permission requirements.
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 immediately followed by the effects. No filler.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should indicate what a successful save returns (payment IDs? count?), and for a non-idempotent write it should warn about duplicate saves. The disclosed side effects partially compensate but leave meaningful gaps.
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 (companyId override, transactionIds array) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Save and persist selected borderou transaction matches") and adds the concrete consequence (payment records created, invoice payment status updated). It does not name how it differs from close siblings like borderou_transactions_rematch or borderou_transaction_update, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
Usage is only implied: "selected borderou transaction matches" suggests this runs after match selection, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. borderou_transaction_update/rematch guidance and no statement about what happens to unmatched transactions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.