Discard a drafted accrual before it posts, keeping the row on record with the reason. If already posted, reverse it instead.
Retire a drafted Abgrenzung before it posts. The row stays on record as discarded with its reason; a posted accrual cannot be discarded (already_posted), reverse it instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | ||
| accrualId | Yes | ||
| workspaceId | Yes | ||
| idempotencyKey | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the row is not deleted but remains on record with status `discarded` and a reason, and it names a specific error condition (`already_posted`). It does not mention idempotency effects or reversibility, but the core behavioral profile is clearly communicated.
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 well-structured sentences with no filler. The primary action and lifecycle constraint are front-loaded, and the error/alternative guidance follows naturally. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The description covers the central behavior, state transition, and error case, but it omits important invocation details such as the meaning of `idempotencyKey` and what the response looks like. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, these omissions leave the description slightly incomplete for an agent making a fully informed call.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only adds meaning for `reason` by noting that the retained row keeps the reason. Required parameters like `workspaceId`, `accrualId`, and especially `idempotencyKey` are left completely unexplained, which is a meaningful gap.
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 states a specific action ('Retire a drafted Abgrenzung before it posts') and clearly identifies the resource. It also differentiates the tool from the reverse operation by explaining that posted accruals cannot be discarded. This makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like accrual_post and accrual_reverse.
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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('before it posts') and when not to use it ('a posted accrual cannot be discarded'), and names the alternative behavior ('reverse it instead'). This is direct, actionable guidance with no reliance on inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.