Update Journal

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by stating that server-managed fields are rejected and that a prerequisite exists for effective_date. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences, no unnecessary words. The core action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct information. Highly concise and efficient.

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 simple update tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key points: what it does, a behavioral constraint, and a dependency on another tool. It could be slightly more explicit about the scope (only draft journals), but overall it is complete enough for an agent.

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?

The schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds the important constraint that server-managed fields are rejected, which the schema does not capture, thus providing additional semantic clarity for the 'data' parameter.

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 'Update draft journal fields' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's function. It also mentions what it does not do (rejects server-managed fields) and a precondition, distinguishing it from related tools like create_journal or 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?

The description provides explicit guidance for a specific scenario: updating a registered effective_date requires invalidate_journal first. This helps the agent choose the correct sequence. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for confirmed journals), though this is implied by 'draft journal fields'.

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