pennylane_create_entry

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the safety burden is partly lifted. The description adds the balance invariant (total debits = total credits) and the string-typed amounts, but the balance rule is duplicated verbatim in the ledger_entry_lines schema, so the incremental behavioral disclosure is modest; nothing about validation errors, permissions, or side effects is added.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the purpose and then the single most important constraint. Nothing is padded, though the amount-format line partly duplicates the schema and the balance rule appears again in the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the full schema coverage limits what the description must carry. However, for a write tool that depends on externally discovered IDs (journal_id, ledger_account_id), the description gives no guidance on sourcing those values, leaving a real gap for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters with examples. The description's only parameter-level note (amounts are strings, e.g. '1500.00') restates what the schema's debit/credit descriptions already say, adding no new semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: creating a new accounting entry ('écriture comptable') with its lines, which clearly separates it from the sibling read/update tools (pennylane_get_entry, pennylane_update_entry, pennylane_list_entries). Sibling names are not referenced explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no pointer to how the required journal_id / ledger_account_id are obtained (e.g. via pennylane_list_journals or pennylane_list_accounts). The description only asserts what the tool does, not when to reach for it.

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