Execute Year-End Close

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds context that the action creates 'draft' entries and requires separate review/registration, which helps the agent understand the non-final nature and the need for subsequent steps. It does not fully explain consequences of repeated calls, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create draft closing journals from prepare_year_end_close') and includes essential conditions. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description omits return value information. However, it connects to the prerequisite tool and outlines the next steps ('review/register separately'), which provides workflow context. For a simple mutation tool, this is nearly complete but could be improved by specifying expected output (e.g., created journal IDs).

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% with descriptions for both 'year' (Fiscal year YYYY) and 'confirm' (must be true). The description reinforces the confirm requirement but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Create', the resource 'draft closing journals', and distinguishes it from 'prepare_year_end_close' by specifying it as the subsequent step. It also notes additional steps ('review/register separately') and the required parameter 'confirm=true', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 after 'prepare_year_end_close' and explicitly requires 'confirm=true'. It does not list when not to use it or provide alternative tools, but the sibling list includes related tools (e.g., 'batch_confirm_journals'), and the context suggests this is for executing the close. The guidance is clear for correct invocation.

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