confirm_journalRegisters a journal entry by ID and marks it as finalized in the ledger. This action is irreversible; use invalidate_journal to reverse it if needed.
Confirm/register a journal entry. IRREVERSIBLE — use invalidate_journal to reverse if needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Object ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.29.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.18.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the operation is irreversible and the only remedy is a separate invalidate_journal call. It still says nothing about state prerequisites or what happens on success.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the irreversible warning and its remedy front-loaded. Nothing redundant with the name or title.
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 one-parameter confirm tool whose annotations already carry the destructive/non-idempotent profile and with no output schema to explain, the description is nearly sufficient. The gaps are minor: no statement of success behavior or preconditions, and no differentiation from batch_confirm_journals.
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% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents 'id' as an Object ID with constraints. The description only implies that the id refers to a journal entry, a marginal clarification over the schema's generic 'Object ID' label, 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Confirm/register a journal entry.' An agent can identify the operation immediately. It does not, however, distinguish this singular tool from the sibling batch_confirm_journals, and the dual verb 'confirm/register' slightly blurs whether these are one operation or two.
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?
It names the reversal path explicitly ('use invalidate_journal to reverse if needed'), which is a real alternative and its selecting condition. It stops short of saying when to confirm versus create/update, or when to prefer batch_confirm_journals for multiple entries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.