Approve GL Entry

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

Describes the state change and audit trail recording beyond annotations. Annotations only indicate idempotent and non-destructive, but description adds that it modifies status and requires roles. No contradiction found.

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?

Contains four sentences (English and Spanish) with some redundancy. The trust area warning and example are useful, but the Spanish translation adds length without new 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?

Explains the side effects (status change, audit trail) and role requirement. No output schema exists, so description compensates reasonably. Could mention what the function returns or error conditions.

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 already describes both parameters (entryId and notes) with 100% coverage. Description provides an example for entryId, which adds value, but does not clarify format or constraints beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states it approves a GL journal entry, sets status to approved, and records approver and timestamp. Distinguishes from reject and audit log tools by naming them as siblings, but does not explicitly differentiate usage.

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?

Specifies required role (gestor/admin) and warns this is a trust area action with example. However, does not state when not to use it (e.g., if already approved) or mention alternatives like frihet_gl_entry_reject.

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