reverse_journal_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool is non-destructive to the original entry (creates a reversal rather than editing/deleting) and that it only operates on posted moves. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or the state of the original entry after the reversal.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and the key rule. It is concise, direct, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 description covers the core purpose and usage guidance clearly, but given the lack of annotations, output schema, and low schema description coverage, it leaves gaps around parameter semantics and the result of the reversal. It is adequate for a straightforward operation but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It only indirectly references move_id as the target move to reverse, but it does not explain the date or reason parameters, their formats, or whether they are optional. This leaves significant ambiguity for a tool with three 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 clearly states the tool's function: creating and posting a reversal of an already-posted move. It distinguishes itself from editing or deleting by framing this as 'the correct way to undo a posted entry,' which sets it apart from sibling tools like update_journal_entry and odoo_unlink.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to undo a posted entry. It also provides a clear 'never' instruction against editing or deleting a posted move directly, implying when not to use alternative operations. This is explicit usage guidance with exclusions.

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