analyze_qbo_journal_cleanup

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses input constraints, output structure (flags, summary, diagnostics, shareable URL with TTL), and fixableInHellobooks boolean. It is transparent about being a read-only analysis tool.

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 front-loaded with core purpose and then provides structured details (issues, input format, limits, output, usage triggers). Each sentence adds value, though it is slightly long; still well-organized.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the output: structured flag list with severity, roll-up summary, parse diagnostics, and shareable URL with TTL. It also covers input limits and usage triggers, making it complete for an agent.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the csvText parameter's export path and pasting instructions, and fileName's optional use. This goes beyond the schema, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 scans a QBO Journal Entries CSV for three specific cleanup issues (unbalanced, duplicate, schema problems). It also mentions the fixableInHellobooks flag, distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_qbo_journal_anomalies.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when user pastes QBO journal data or asks 'check my books', 'find issues in my QBO journal', etc. Also specifies input format, export path, and limits (max 5,000 rows, 5 MB). No exclusion clauses but clear context.

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