reverse_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. It does disclose the important non-obvious semantics — reversal creates a NEW counter-entry rather than mutating or removing the original, and posted entries are permanent — but says nothing about permissions, period/date constraints, whether the reversal itself can be undone, or failure modes.

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?

Three short sentences with no padding; the core action is front-loaded and the mechanism and constraint follow immediately. Every sentence 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?

For a 2-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism, and the key permanence constraint. It does not indicate what the caller receives (e.g., the new reversal entry ID) or any validation behavior around reversal_date, which is a minor gap.

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 both parameters, including that reversal_date defaults to the original entry date, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (reverse) plus resource (posted journal entry) and explains the mechanism: a new entry with opposite debits/credits. It also distinguishes itself from the delete/void-style siblings by noting posted entries cannot be deleted, only reversed.

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?

Implied usage is clear and almost explicit: use this when a posted entry needs to be undone, because deletion is not possible. It does not name or exclude any concrete sibling tool (e.g., post_journal_entry or get_journal_entry) as an alternative, so it falls short of a full 5.

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