set_camt_matching

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses idempotency ('Idempotent; one row per workspace'), parameter constraints (ranges and defaults), and explicitly scopes side effects to ranking and review events only. This gives an agent a clear model of the tool's behavior beyond what a bare schema would provide.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and each clause earns its place. It packs parameter semantics, scope limitations, and idempotency without redundancy. This is a model of concise, high-density documentation.

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 configuration tool with no output schema operative, the description covers all parameters and key behavioral aspects. It does not mention prerequisites, permissions, or return values, but given the limited scope and idempotency, an agent can safely invoke it with the provided information. The one-row-per-workspace constraint is a useful caveat.

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. It explains both optional parameters: valueDateWindowDays (0-60, default 5) and reviewThreshold (any|medium|high, default any). The required parameters workspaceId and idempotencyKey are not described, but they are conventional and self-explanatory. The description adds meaningful constraints and defaults that the schema lacks.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Tune the workspace debit-matching (A36 §6b)'. It clearly distinguishes this from operational matching tools like suggest_matches or confirm_match by focusing on configuration parameters. The phrase 'tune ranking and the review event only' further clarifies the narrow scope.

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 implies usage for adjusting matching thresholds but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives. It mentions what it does not affect (the exact amount + currency gate), which provides some context, but no sibling tools are named and no 'when-to-use' vs 'when-not-to-use' guidance is given.

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