edit_journal_entry

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It reveals validation (debits=credits) and draft preview behavior. However, it omits details on mutation side effects, reversibility, or required permissions, leaving gaps for a full understanding.

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 brief (4 sentences), front-loads the main purpose, and structures instructions logically. No redundant information.

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 tool's complexity (nested lines, validation), the description covers key aspects: field updates, line CRUD, and draft validation. However, it lacks return value expectations or error scenarios, which is acceptable given no output schema.

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?

The schema covers all parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds significant value by explaining line modification patterns (update via line_id, add via omission, delete via delete flag). This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 modifies an existing journal entry and lists updatable fields (date, memo, doc_number, lines). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_journal_entry (new) and get_journal_entry (read-only).

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?

While the description implies use when editing existing entries, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Sibling context (e.g., create_journal_entry for new entries) provides some differentiation, but the description itself does not clarify.

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