myob_journal_prepare_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is 'high-risk' and requires approval, which is useful context. However, it does not describe what 'preparing' entails, whether it mutates data directly, what the approval process is, or what the user should expect in response beyond the output schema.

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 extremely concise, with only two sentences. Both sentences carry information: the purpose and the risk/approval requirement. It front-loads the core function. However, it is under-specified, but the conciseness itself is appropriate given the lack of detail.

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 presence of an output schema and sibling approval tools, the description is incomplete for an agent to use correctly. It does not explain the prepare-commit workflow, what json_body should contain, or how approval integrates. The description is too sparse for a tool with a required flexible object and significant risk.

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 0%, and the description does not mention json_body or business_id at all. The required json_body parameter is a flexible object with additionalProperties true, leaving the agent completely without guidance on its structure or required fields. The description adds zero value beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Prepare general journal creation.' It uses a specific verb ('prepare') and resource ('general journal'), which distinguishes it from other prepare tools for different entities. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar prepare-then-commit workflows, so it's clear but not fully sibling-distinctive.

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 like myob_raw_prepare_mutation or myob_commit_operation. The 'High-risk approval required' warning hints at a workflow but does not explain the prepare/approve/commit sequence or when to choose this over other tools.

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