monica_journal

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that by stating that delete requires confirm:true, but it never says whether deletes are recoverable, whether update overwrites unspecified fields, or what create/update return.

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 front-loaded definition sentence followed by a tight bullet list per operation — a good structure for a multi-action tool. The bullets are telegraphic ('update — change it'), which trades a little clarity for brevity but wastes no words.

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 7-parameter, five-action mutation tool with no output schema and only 43% schema coverage, the description covers the operation surface and two defaults but leaves per-action field requirements, pagination (limit), and return behavior unaddressed.

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 only 43%, and the description compensates only partially: it documents the date default ('today by default') and the confirm flag, and lets the agent infer id for get/update/delete. It says nothing about limit, title, or post, nor which fields each action accepts or requires.

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?

Names the resource precisely ('journal: dated entries about your own days, not tied to a contact') and enumerates the five operations with concrete verbs (list/get/create/update/delete). The phrase 'not tied to a contact' explicitly separates it from sibling tools like monica_notes and monica_activities, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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 per-action bullets implicitly tell the agent which operation fits which intent, and delete is flagged as needing confirm: true. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named, so routing still relies on inference.

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