odoo_journal_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Consigner' (record), implying a write action, but doesn't specify whether it creates a new note, appends to an existing journal, overwrites, or requires a session/connection. There's no mention of side effects, permissions, or failure behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It's a single substantive sentence followed by a category enumeration. No superfluous content. Slight deduction for using backticks and not formatting the categories as a clean list, but overall it's efficient.

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 simple note-taking tool, the description captures the main purpose and gives category options. However, it omits important context: it doesn't mention that this likely appends to the current journal session (given sibling tools like odoo_journal_start and odoo_journal_chapter) or any prerequisites. It also doesn't describe the output or result of the operation, though an output schema exists. The tool is straightforward, but the description leaves gaps about the workflow integration.

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 has two parameters (texte, categorie) with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning to 'categorie' by enumerating allowed values (note|decision|alerte), which is valuable. However, 'texte' is not described beyond its schema title 'Texte', and the description doesn't explain how the parameters are used together. Some parameter semantics are provided, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: to record items that are not accounting entries but need to be explained to the client ('Consigner ce qui n'est pas une ecriture mais merite d'etre explique au client'). It names the resource (journal note) and gives specific examples (arbitrage, anomalie, limite, sujet ecarte). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling journal tools, the purpose is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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 implies when to use the tool: for non-entry explanations to the client. It also provides category values (note|decision|alerte) to guide content type. However, it doesn't state when not to use it or mention any alternatives, and there's no reference to how it relates to other journal tools.

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