manager_override_4473

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well. It discloses that the tool mints Retail Sale disposition(s) marked manual_override with WHO and WHY for auditability, does NOT push to FastBound, and requires separate bound book reconciliation. This gives an agent a clear picture of both effect and non-effect.

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 but every sentence carries essential information: purpose, preconditions, effects, audit trail, sync limitation, and required confirmation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with constraints, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 high-stakes override tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical selection, confirmation, and auditability aspects. The main gap is the unexplained 'invoice_name' parameter and the absence of any hint about return/result behavior, but the tool can be invoked safely with the information provided.

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 missing parameter documentation. It does clarify that 'reason' is required and that 'confirm=true' is needed to execute, but it does not explain what 'invoice_name' refers to or how to supply it. This is partial compensation, not complete.

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 verb ('force-complete'), a specific resource ('stuck firearm POS sale'), and the exact precondition ('4473 WAS genuinely completed in FastBound but never synced back'). It clearly distinguishes this override from normal processing tools and even notes it does not push to FastBound, setting it apart from sync-related siblings.

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 a clear scenario for when this tool is appropriate: a 4473 that genuinely completed in FastBound but failed to sync due to edited serial, deleted disposition, or FastBound being down. It also warns against expecting FastBound sync and instructs to reconcile the bound book separately, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool as the alternative.

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