create_manual_journal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, required setup, posting behavior, or consequences of creating a journal. It discloses none of these, only stating the action itself. This is a significant gap for a mutating financial operation.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than usefully concise. A single sentence that merely restates the tool name does not earn credit for good structure because it omits essential operational and parameter context.

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?

Given that the tool has no annotations, no output schema, a pass-through nested body, and a manual journal is a domain-specific financial object, the description is far from complete. An agent has no way to know the required body structure, validation rules, financial implications, or success behavior.

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 one parameter, 'body', with a description that it is passed through to Bigcapital, so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but per the baseline for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate. Still, the schema's own description is quite limited and does not explain what fields the body should contain.

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 simply restates the tool name as a sentence: 'Create a manual journal.' It names a verb and resource but adds no contextual detail about what a manual journal is or how this operation differs from related journal or create operations. This is effectively a tautology rather than a clarifying definition.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_manual_journal, publish_manual_journal, or create_invoice. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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