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

The annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only, and the description adds substantial context: the action is irreversible, non-idempotent, creates a counter-entry if reversed, and requires prior user confirmation. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone 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 irreversibility warning is front-loaded, followed by accounting constraints and idempotency behavior. Every sentence carries operational value with no filler.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential safety profile: irreversibility, non-idempotency, reversal path, and required user confirmation. It also states the core accounting validation rule.

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 only 33%, and the description does not explain the title, date, or items structure in detail. It does add the critical debit-equals-credit invariant and confirmation requirement, but it only partially compensates for the undocumented parameters.

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 and resource: post a journal entry (verification) to the ledger. It clearly distinguishes this from bokio_reverse_journal_entry, which posts a counter-entry rather than creating a new journal entry.

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?

It explicitly says to call only when the user has confirmed the exact lines, and it names bokio_reverse_journal_entry as the alternative for undoing an entry. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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