process_journal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral rule (amounts must sum to zero or Yuki rejects) and implies a write operation. It does not mention permissions or return behavior, but the disclosed validation rule is highly valuable and non-obvious.

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 action, and the CAPITALIZED warning earns its place. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff.

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 and schema together provide sufficient context for a complex tool with no output schema. The description covers purpose and key constraint, while the schema covers all parameters. It could mention return behavior, but that is not essential for invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the sum-to-zero rule (already in the schema) but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 states a specific verb ('Post'), a specific resource ('general journal entry (memoriaal)'), and concrete use cases ('bank reconciliation, corrections, or custom bookings'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like process_sales_invoice and process_purchase_invoice.

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 gives explicit use cases (bank reconciliation, corrections, custom bookings) and the term 'general journal entry' implies it is for non-invoice entries. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it (e.g., 'use process_sales_invoice for sales invoices').

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