fx_revaluation_reverse

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses atomicity, that the mirror entry and its own next-day reversal are booked, that positions and account 6949 net to zero on both dates, and that original entries stay on record. There is no contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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?

The description is dense and front-loaded: the first sentence states purpose and mechanism, then parameter origin, refusal conditions, and idempotency. The CONSEQUENCE line at the end repeats what was already stated, adding slight redundancy, but every other clause earns its place for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description thoroughly covers behavior, error conditions, and parameter origins. It lacks an explicit return value description and omits workspaceId explanation, but the core invocation requirements are fully specified and an agent can call the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains runId as the run returned by post_fx_revaluation and identifies idempotencyKey as the idempotency key, but it does not explain workspaceId at all. This is only partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 tool reverts a posted FX revaluation run and details the exact mechanism (books the mirror plus its own next-day reversal). It references the sibling post_fx_revaluation by saying runId is the run that tool returned, which differentiates it from generic reversal tools like reverse_entry.

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 gives explicit preconditions and refusal conditions: runId must come from post_fx_revaluation, and it refuses for not_posted, already_reversed, later_run_exists (implying 'revert newest first'), and period_locked. It also states idempotency on idempotencyKey. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other reversal scenarios, so it lacks full alternative routing.

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