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

The description goes far beyond the destructiveHint annotation by detailing exact behaviors: derived entries are recreated on next sync, manual overrides revert to automatic, standalone entries are voided (kept for audit, excluded from reports), and all outcomes are audit-logged. This rich behavioral context is not present in the annotations and adds significant value.

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 concise yet comprehensive, with each sentence adding necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core action, then breaks down outcomes in a structured, logical order, avoiding redundancy and fluff.

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 the tool's destructive nature and multiple behavioral branches, the description covers all essential context: when to use alternatives, what happens for each entry type, and audit implications. With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description is fully complete for an agent to understand the tool's 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, but those descriptions are generic ('UUID value wrapper') and add little semantic value. The tool description does not elaborate on the parameters beyond their names, so it does not improve on schema coverage. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 'Delete or void a journal entry', using a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like accounting_upsert_journal_entry or accounting_get_journal_entry_by_transaction. It also explains the different deletion semantics (derived vs manual override vs standalone), further clarifying the tool's unique purpose.

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 states 'For entries tied to a transaction prefer re-categorizing the transaction (the entry re-derives)', providing a clear alternative and when to use it instead. It also outlines the consequences for each entry type, giving the agent situational guidance on when deletion is appropriate.

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