update_journal

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

Annotations already confirm it is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the important constraint that line items must balance after update, but does not disclose other potential side effects (openWorldHint=true) or error conditions. The added value is moderate.

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 sentences with clear front-loading of purpose. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value: action, what can be updated, and a crucial constraint.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., updated journal object). Given the complexity (6 parameters, nested arrays) and the balancing constraint, the description is adequate but leaves expected outcomes unspecified.

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%, so each parameter is documented. The description summarizes the updatable parameters and adds the balancing constraint for line items, which is not in the schema. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema descriptions.

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 updates an existing journal entry and lists the updatable fields (date, reference, notes, line items). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_journal, delete_journal, and publish_journal by specifying 'update' on an existing entry.

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 implies usage for modifying an existing journal entry, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool (e.g., for creating, use create_journal; for deleting, use delete_journal). Context from sibling tools helps, but direct guidance is missing.

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