Batch Confirm Journals

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: irreversibility is per successful row (not all-or-nothing), already-registered rows are skipped rather than re-processed, and failures/indeterminate outcomes are surfaced per ID. This is meaningful partial-failure semantics an agent cannot get from the 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 terse sentences with zero filler; the irreversible nature is stated first, followed by skip/error semantics. Every clause carries distinct information and the highest-risk fact is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the per-ID result reporting (success, failure, indeterminate), which is the key return behavior. It stops short of describing whether the response is partial on failure or how skipped rows are distinguished, but coverage is solid for a 2-parameter tool.

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% — both 'ids' (positive integers, 1-500) and 'reason' (required audit note, max 500 chars) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Confirm/register') and resource ('journals') with explicit batch scope ('multiple'), which distinguishes it from the singular sibling confirm_journal without naming it. The purpose is unambiguous, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with confirm_journal or batch_delete_transactions.

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?

Batch usage is implied by 'multiple journals' and the 'batch_' prefix, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over looping confirm_journal, or whether all IDs must belong to the same connection/period. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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