mf_accounting_delete_journal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the single most important trait: the deletion is irreversible ('不可逆操作') and is gated behind a mandatory confirmation flag. It omits secondary behavior such as auth/scope requirements or what happens if the journal_id is not found, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, then the risk, then the required safeguard. No filler and nothing is buried.

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 an irreversible, two-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers action, endpoint, reversibility, and the confirmation gate. It would be complete at 5 with a note on required permissions or post-delete effects, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so both journal_id and confirm are already documented in the schema, including the 'must be true' constraint. The description restates the confirm requirement without adding format or edge-case meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('会計仕訳を削除する') and pins the exact endpoint DELETE /api/v3/journals/{id}. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling set's create/update/get journal tools, which an agent can pick apart at a glance.

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?

Gives a clear condition and guardrail: irreversible, so confirm=true must always be supplied to avoid accidental deletion. It does not name an alternative (e.g. update_journal for reversible corrections), but for a delete tool the usage context is effectively unambiguous.

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