freee_create_manual_journal

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 tool creates a new manual journal, requires balancing totals, and has an adjustment flag. It does not discuss authorization needs or side effects like irreversibility, but the core behavioral constraints (balancing) are well communicated.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, provides use cases, and gives essential instructions. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (nested details array, balancing constraint) and no output schema, the description covers the main points. It could mention validation behavior (e.g., error if totals don't balance) but overall it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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%, but the description adds critical meaning beyond the schema. It explains that companyId defaults to an environment variable, details must include at least one debit and one credit with balancing totals, and adjustment defaults to false. The balancing requirement is a key business rule not expressed in 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 creates a manual journal entry (振替伝票) with debit/credit entries. It provides specific use cases like closing adjustments (depreciation, prepaid expenses), distinguishing it from other transaction creation tools such as freee_create_deal. The verb 'Create' combined with the resource 'manual journal' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives concrete examples of when to use this tool (closing adjustments) and how to mark entries with adjustment=true. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for regular transactions. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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