update_journal_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that lines are replaced entirely (a destructive behavior) and that the entry must be a draft, but it does not mention permissions, reversibility, what happens to existing lines if omitted, or behavior on non-draft entries.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no redundant wording. The reference to create_journal_entry's `lines` shape is efficient and concise.

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?

Given complex update semantics, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and reusable shape but omits important details like how values are applied, whether lines are optional, error states, and side effects. It is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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. It explains the `lines` parameter by referencing create_journal_entry's shape, and implies `values` are header fields, but `move_id` is left unexplained. The description adds some meaning but not enough for all 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 action ('Update') and the resource ('a draft journal entry'), and specifies the two aspects: header and/or lines. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_journal_entry' and 'post_journal_entry' by focusing on updating a draft.

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 implies use for modifying draft journal entries, as opposed to creating, posting, or reversing them. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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