mfc_ca_deleteJournals

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that this is a destructive 'complete delete', a bookkeeping write operation, unofficial relative to the MCP, and requires user approval. This is unusually transparent for a delete tool, though it does not mention return values or side effects.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the core action first and packs all essential warnings into a compact parenthetical. Every element earns its place with 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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical safety aspects: full deletion, write operation, and user approval. It is weakened by leaving the sole parameter undefined and not mentioning any post-deletion behavior.

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 only parameter `id` is documented only as 'string'. The description does not explain what the id refers to, its format, or how to obtain it. The agent must infer from the tool name that it is a journal identifier.

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 a specific action ('完全削除' = completely delete) and resource ('仕訳' = journals), making the tool's purpose obvious. It lacks an explicit contrast with the sibling deleteVouchers tool, but the resource noun distinguishes it from the surrounding get/post/put journal tools.

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 intended use is implied: delete a journal entry. It also adds a relevant precondition ('要ユーザー承認' = user approval required). However, it gives no explicit guidance about when this tool should be preferred over alternatives such as deleteVouchers.

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