delete_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. 'Delete an existing journal' confirms the destructive nature but adds no detail about irreversibility, cascading effects, or failure behavior. The word 'existing' weakly implies the journal must be present, but this is minimal for a destructive operation.

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?

A single five-word sentence with no filler. The verb 'Delete' leads, followed by the resource. It is appropriately concise for a simple CRUD operation, though it sacrifices explanatory content for brevity.

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?

For a low-complexity delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description states the core action but leaves parameter explanations and behavioral caveats unaddressed. An agent cannot determine the role of campaignId or know whether deletion is reversible. The description is not complete enough for an unassisted agent to invoke the tool with confidence.

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?

The schema provides only numeric names id and campaignId with no descriptions, and the description adds no parameter information. The parameter names suggest id identifies the journal and campaignId scopes it, but the description does not clarify their roles or why both are required. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 'Delete an existing journal' clearly identifies the action (delete) and resource (journal), making it easy to distinguish from create/update/get journal siblings. It adds the qualifier 'existing', which hints that the journal must already exist. However, it relies entirely on the verb for differentiation and does not add scoping or consequence detail.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when a journal needs to be deleted. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, nor mention of conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. It also does not note that deletion is permanent or that campaignId must correspond to the journal's campaign.

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