create_journal

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, aligning with the creation action. The description adds value by stating the balancing requirement and the need to look up accounts, which are not covered by annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no waste. Every sentence provides essential guidance (balancing constraint and account lookup). Concise and well-structured.

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 creation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core constraint and external dependency. Missing details like return behavior, error handling, or draft/pending status, but overall adequate for the complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema: the balancing rule is already in the line_items schema description, and the account lookup hint is additive. No syntax or format details are provided.

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 creates a new manual journal entry, with 'Create' as a specific verb and 'journal entry' as the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_journal, get_journal, delete_journal, and list_journals by focusing on creation.

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 provides a key constraint (line items must balance) and a prerequisite hint (use list_accounts for valid account IDs). While it lacks explicit when-not or alternatives, the context is clear enough for basic usage.

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