brc_update_nominal_journal_batch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the update behavior and the two-step process involving confirmWrite, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior, audit logging) or consequences of timestamp mismatches. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise, consisting of two focused sentences. Essential workflow guidance is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or extraneous 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?

Given no output schema and 9 parameters, the description covers the prerequisite step and confirmation workflow. However, it does not describe return values or error conditions, leaving some gaps for an update operation. Overall, it provides sufficient context for the core task.

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 coverage is high (89%), so baseline is 3. The description adds workflow context to key parameters: timestamps (from get) and confirmWrite (only after user confirmation). This enhances understanding beyond the schema descriptions, justifying a score above baseline.

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 updates an existing Nominal Journal Batch by id, distinguishing it from create and delete siblings. It specifies the action (update) and the resource (nominal journal batch by id), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 to first retrieve the batch using brc_get_nominal_journal_batch to get timestamps, and warns against setting confirmWrite=true until user confirms. This effectively communicates when to use the tool and the prerequisite workflow, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling update tools.

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