post_journal_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the irreversibility caveat and points to reversal as the correction method, which is the most critical behavioral trait for a posting operation. It doesn't cover other aspects like permissions or return values, but the key caveat is well addressed.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by an essential caveat. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema/annotation details.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, but the description fails to explain move_id and relies on prior knowledge of post_invoice for the caveat. The irreversibility warning is useful, but overall the description leaves gaps regarding the parameter and expected behavior, making it only partially complete.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the move_id parameter. The agent must infer from the parameter name and tool context that move_id refers to the draft journal entry to be posted, which is not explicitly stated. This is a significant gap for the only required parameter.

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 clearly states the action: 'Post a draft journal entry.' It specifically identifies the resource (draft journal entry) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_journal_entry, update_journal_entry, and reverse_journal_entry by limiting to drafts. The reference to post_invoice also helps contextualize the action.

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 description provides explicit guidance: use this tool to post draft journal entries, and be aware of irreversibility. It also tells the agent what to do instead for corrections ('correct a posted entry with a reversal'), effectively offering an alternative approach and implying when not to use this tool. This is strong usage guidance.

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