post_journal_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the two most consequential traits: the entry becomes immutable and it affects account balances. It omits permissions/authorization requirements, whether the entry must be balanced or in draft state before posting, and what error conditions to expect, so it is strong but not complete.

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, zero filler, and the state-changing consequence is front-loaded immediately after the action statement. Every clause contributes meaning.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential semantics an agent needs: what it does, that it is irreversible, and that it changes balances. It is only slightly short of complete because it says nothing about prerequisites (entry state) or failure behavior.

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% for the single entry_id parameter, so the schema already explains the input. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 for a well-covered 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 (post) and resource (journal entry) with the target system named (KikoBooks). The action is clearly distinct from the sibling lifecycle operations create_journal_entry, get_journal_entry, reverse_journal_entry, and search_journal_entries, so an agent can place it correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Post a journal entry' tells the agent this applies to an existing, presumably unposted entry, and the immutability note hints at caution. However, it never names when to choose this over create_journal_entry (build a new entry) or reverse_journal_entry (undo a posted one), leaving the routing decision to inference.

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