sn_journal

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotence; the description corroborates this by warning that undo 'changes the instance' and adds the useful detail that confirm=true is required. It does not disclose scope of the revert (single entry only?), whether the undo itself is journaled or reversible, or any permission requirements.

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 compact sentences, no filler, with the destructive warning about undo placed inline where it matters. Every clause carries information an agent needs before invoking either mode.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. But for a destructive 4-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, the definition never explains how to target a specific journal entry for undo, nor which parameters apply to which action — a real gap for the mutation path.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only explains action and confirm. The limit and entry_id parameters are never mentioned — critically, nothing says that entry_id identifies which write undo reverts, leaving the undo path underspecified despite a 4-parameter 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 resource (the write journal) and names both operating modes with their effects, so an agent can distinguish listing applied writes from reverting one. It does not contrast itself against siblings like sn_write or sn_admin, which is the only missing piece.

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 two actions are explained with the condition that undo requires confirm=true and mutates the instance, which gives implied guidance on which mode to pick. However there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus sn_write to inspect or change writes, and no guidance on prerequisites for journal mode.

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