delete_journal_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that deletion makes the entry inactive, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or side effects, leaving some transparency gap.

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 a single, well-formed sentence that communicates the core action and nuance without unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded.

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 delete operation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the action and the 'make inactive' nuance, but lacks details on expected input format (especially idOrEntity), return value, and error handling. A bit more context would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 2 parameters with 50% description coverage (company is described, params.idOrEntity is not). The description adds no parameter information, failing to clarify what 'idOrEntity' expects. Schema alone is insufficient for agent understanding.

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 verb 'Delete (make inactive)' and the resource 'journal entry in QuickBooks Online'. It distinguishes this tool from other delete tools by specifying the resource type, and the parenthetical clarifies the operation's behavioral nuance.

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 this tool (to delete a journal entry) and hints that the operation makes it inactive rather than hard-deleting. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives (e.g., using update_journal_entry to set an active flag). The context of sibling tools makes the purpose clear enough.

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