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

The destructiveHint annotation already declares destructiveness, so 'This is destructive' is partly redundant. But 'requires approval by default' is genuinely new behavioral context that explains the approval_id workflow and the default gate on execution, which annotations do not convey.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and immediately followed by the destructive/approval caveat. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adds the approval requirement, leaving only minor gaps such as explicit irreversibility wording for a non-idempotent delete.

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 100%, so entry_id and approval_id are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The phrase 'requires approval by default' loosely connects to approval_id but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('removed'/'delete') and resource ('journal entry'), making the action unmistakable. It is clear on its own but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling journal tools like journal.update or journal.list beyond the delete action itself.

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?

Provides a trigger condition ('When the user wants a journal entry removed'), which is a usable use-context. However, it offers no when-not guidance or alternatives, and the clause largely restates the tool's obvious purpose rather than routing the agent among siblings.

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