Update Journal

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

The description discloses that server-managed fields are rejected and that updating a registered effective_date requires invalidation. Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds valuable behavioral context without contradiction.

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 sentence plus a subordinate clause, containing no fluff. It is front-loaded with the main action and efficiently conveys key constraints.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers essential constraints and prerequisites. It could optionally mention the return value (e.g., updated journal object), but overall it is adequate for an update 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the constraints on the data object (rejecting server-managed fields) and the prerequisite for effective_date. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 tool updates draft journal fields, distinguishing it from create_journal, delete_journal, confirm_journal, etc. It specifies constraints on server-managed fields and effective_date, adding precise scope.

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 gives context for when to use: it warns against updating server-managed fields and explains that registered effective_date requires calling invalidate_journal first. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like confirm_journal, though 'draft' implies it's for draft journals.

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