mfc_ca_putJournals

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does a good job: it flags the destructive full-replacement behavior and the ledger-write nature, plus the user-approval requirement. It omits return format and failure modes, but the critical behavioral traits for a write operation are disclosed.

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 compact sentence with the core verb front-loaded and the two most important caveats (full replacement, approval required) packed efficiently. No wasted words.

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 write operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials—operation, destructive scope, and approval need. It does not explain return values or error conditions, and it lacks any pointer to sibling tools for alternative operations, leaving a moderately complete picture.

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 67%, and the journal and office_code parameters are already well documented in the schema with detailed structure and constraints. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so it doesn't compensate for the undocumented id parameter, but it also doesn't need to since the schema does most of the work.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 仕訳を更新します (updates journals), and adds that it is a full-replacement API (全置換API) writing to the ledger. This is clear, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling mfc_ca_postJournals (create) or mfc_ca_deleteJournals (delete), relying on 'update' and 'full replacement' to imply the difference.

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 discloses a usage precondition, 要ユーザー承認 (user approval required), and the destructive full-replacement nature. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling mfc_ca_postJournals for creating or mfc_ca_getJournals for reading, so an agent must infer usage context.

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