mf_accounting_update_journal

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: dry_run avoids the API call and returns the request body as JSON, and it validates that debits and credits balance per branch beforehand. However, it omits other important traits like required permissions, idempotency, or what happens to existing data not provided (partial update vs full replacement is only implied by the schema).

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds two important behavioral notes. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a tool with complex schema. Minor improvement possible by separating concerns for readability.

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 (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential update operation, dry_run preview, and validation. However, it lacks guidance on error handling, required permissions, or side effects (e.g., full replacement of branches). For a mutation tool with no annotations, more context would be beneficial.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds only the dry_run behavior and validation note, which are already partially covered in the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it updates an existing journal entry and names the endpoint (PUT /api/v3/journals/{id}). It distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like create_journal or delete_journal. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or dependencies beyond the endpoint, making it clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 usage by specifying dry_run behavior and validation, but it does not state when to use this tool versus others (e.g., create_journal vs update_journal). There is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance, leaving the agent to infer context.

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