update_journal_period

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to existing period data, whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 appropriately concise with just two parallel phrases in English and Portuguese. Both versions are front-loaded with the essential action and target. While bilingual presentation adds some length, each phrase earns its place by serving different user bases without 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what errors might occur, or important behavioral context. Given the complexity of updating a journal period (which could affect financial reporting or data integrity), more contextual information would be valuable despite the good schema coverage.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what a 'journal label' represents, what format 'new_period' should be in, or what 'additional parameters' might include. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 action ('Update'/'Atualizar') and the resource ('period of a journal'/'periodo de um diario'), providing both English and Portuguese versions. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_journal_details' or 'perform_journal_action' by specifying the period update function. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other journal-related tools beyond the basic verb+resource pairing.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing journal), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'perform_journal_action' or 'import_journals'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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