update_manual_journal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the update action implied by the name and provides no information about effects, idempotency, permissions, validation, or response 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 short but that is under-specification, not conciseness. The single sentence contributes no information beyond the tool name and fails to explain anything about the update operation.

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?

This is an update tool with two required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides none of the context an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what 'body' should contain, what 'id' refers to, or what happens after the update.

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 only 50%: 'id' has no description, and 'body' is only described as a pass-through object. The description itself adds no meaning to either parameter, leaving the meaning of 'body' and its accepted structure entirely unexplained.

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 is a tautology: 'Update a manual journal.' exactly restates the tool name without adding any detail about what an update involves or how it differs from related manual-journal tools like create_manual_journal or publish_manual_journal.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus creating, publishing, or fetching a manual journal. The sibling list includes closely related operations, but the description provides no selection criteria.

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