Update Journal

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: server-managed fields are rejected, and registered effective_date edits are blocked pending invalidate_journal. Minor gaps (what exactly counts as server-managed) keep it at 4.

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 compact sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the constraint/precondition following. Every clause carries operational information; nothing is wasted.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers scope, validation constraints, and a key workflow precondition. It is largely complete, though it does not spell out the full set of rejected/server-managed fields.

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% (baseline 3), but the description adds real domain meaning to the otherwise generic 'data' object by naming server-managed fields and the effective_date field with its registration precondition. That is more than restating the schema.

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 (Update) and resource (draft journal fields), with a scope qualifier ('draft') that separates it from confirm_journal and invalidate_journal. It does not name a sibling alternative in general terms, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Implies use for draft journals and gives explicit routing for one case: 'registered effective_date requires invalidate_journal first', naming the alternative to use instead. It lacks broader when-not guidance (e.g., when the journal is not a draft), so 4.

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