reconcile_conversions

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 does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it mutates records, what side effects may occur, or what the reconciliation output looks like.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and the primary resources, making it easy to parse, though it is minimal.

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 two undocumented array parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not sufficient for an agent to confidently call the tool. Missing details include input format, matching logic, return values, and any 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 description coverage is 0%, and the properties 'crm' and 'crm' and 'destination' are only typed as arrays with no descriptions. The description loosely maps 'crm' to CRM conversions and 'destination' to destination conversion records, but it does not explain the expected structure, required fields, or how the two arrays relate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reconcile') and names the resources involved: CRM conversions and destination conversion records. It is clear enough to distinguish this from unrelated siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from similar validation/diagnosis tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_attribution_pipeline or detect_attribution_gaps. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving usage largely to inference.

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