Approve GL Entry

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

Annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are not contradicted. The description adds important behavioral context: role requirement, trust area, and what the action does (updates status, records audit trail). No annotation contradiction.

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 relatively short but unnecessarily includes a full Spanish translation after the English part, creating redundancy. It could be more concise by using one language or a shorter format.

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 the tool has only 2 parameters, an output schema, and moderately rich annotations, the description fully covers purpose, effect, role requirements, and a usage warning. No significant gaps.

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 100%, so the description adds minimal extra meaning. It provides an example entry ID ('gl_2026_q1_042') but otherwise repeats schema info.

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 ('Approve a General Ledger journal entry'), the resource, and the effect ('Sets entry status to 'approved' and records the approver + timestamp'). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'frihet_gl_entry_reject'.

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 specifies required role ('gestor/admin'), warns it's a 'TRUST AREA action', and advises to double-check entry ID. It provides context for when to use but does not explicitly list situations when not to use (beyond the trust area warning).

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