Invalidate Journal

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, and openWorld=false. The description adds the state transition back to unconfirmed and a regulatory traceability requirement (RPS § 10) that is not captured by 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect. The compliance sentence is a useful instruction rather than padding, and 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?

For a one-parameter mutation tool with full annotations and no output schema, this covers the effect and audit obligation well. It could still mention the confirmation prerequisite or expected response more explicitly.

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%, and the single id parameter is documented only as 'Object ID'. The description implies the ID refers to a journal entry, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States the specific verb (invalidate/reverse) and resource (a confirmed journal entry), and the stated effect of returning it to unconfirmed status distinguishes it from both delete_journal and confirm_journal.

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?

Gives clear context: use on a confirmed journal entry to reverse it for editing or deletion. It does not name an alternative tool or state explicit when-not conditions, so it stops short of the top score.

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