alter_ledger

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

With no annotations, the description still discloses key behavior: it is a mutation, only supplied fields are changed, and opening balance changes require a two-step approval flow where the first call returns current vs new values. It omits permission requirements, backup behavior, and other side effects, so it falls short of full transparency.

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 compact clauses with no filler, and the most important behavioral nuance (two-step opening balance approval) is placed at the end of a front-loaded description. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The core mutation purpose and the non-obvious opening-balance approval workflow are covered. However, for a 25-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, many parameter meanings and operational details remain absent, making it only minimally complete.

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 only 40% across 25 parameters. The description names several fields and clarifies new_name and the opening_balance workflow, but leaves many parameters like email, phone, mobile, country, credit_days, dry_run, and extra_xml unexplained, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States 'Modify a ledger' and enumerates the kinds of fields that can change, making the mutation purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from create_ledger or alter_master, but the verb/resource combination is clear.

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 use on an existing ledger and adds important partial-update semantics ('Only given fields change') plus the two-step opening-balance approval flow. It does not explicitly say when to choose this over create_ledger or alter_master, nor does it list prerequisites.

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