ofw_create_journal_entry

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

The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation 'destructiveHint: false'. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens upon creation (e.g., return value). The annotation is sparse, and the description does not compensate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys the essential action and resource.

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 simple tool with two required string parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details about input constraints (e.g., max length, formatting) and the result of the creation (e.g., entry ID, status). More context would be beneficial.

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%, meaning the schema already documents both parameters (title and body) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 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?

Description clearly states the action ('Create'), the resource ('new journal entry'), and the platform ('OurFamilyWizard'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like ofw_list_journal_entries or ofw_create_event.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where a different tool might be more appropriate.

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