Unlink a voucher from a journal entry to correct misattached documents. The voucher remains saved and can be reassigned to the appropriate journal entry.
仕訳と証憑の紐付けを解除します（証憑自体は孤立して残る。公式MCP未提供・要ユーザー承認）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| journal_id | Yes | ||
| office_code | No | 対象事業者の事業者番号（XXXX-XXXX）。APIキー認証では必須。MF_OFFICE_CODE を設定していれば省略可 | |
| voucher_file_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and adds genuine value: it discloses the side effect (証憑自体は孤立して残る — the voucher remains orphaned), the authorization requirement (要ユーザー承認), and an availability caveat (公式MCP未提供). It does not cover reversibility, error behavior, or response format, which a mutation tool would ideally disclose.
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?
A single sentence with a parenthetical packs the core operation plus three key caveats with no filler. The main action is front-loaded and every clause carries information, though the dense parenthetical bundles multiple distinct concerns together.
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?
The description covers the primary effect and the critical caveats, which is meaningful for a misleadingly named mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations. But with two undocumented required parameters and no return/result behavior described, an agent still faces gaps when invoking it correctly.
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 only 33% — only office_code is documented in the schema — yet the description offers no parameter-level guidance. journal_id and voucher_file_id are undocumented in both the schema and the description, and their expected formats or identifier origins are unstated, so the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.
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 states a specific verb (紐付けを解除 = unlink) and resource (the journal-voucher linkage), and clarifies that the voucher itself survives as an isolated record. This distinguishes it from sibling deletion tools like mfc_ca_deleteJournals and corrects the potentially misleading tool name 'deleteVouchers'.
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 implies the use case (unlinking a journal-voucher association while preserving the voucher) and flags a prerequisite (要ユーザー承認). However, it names no sibling alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, leaving the agent to infer routing from the operation semantics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.