create_ledger_entry

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 key traits: it is a real write to production books, incorrect entries distort the company accounts, and the payload is forwarded verbatim. Missing are idempotency/duplicate behavior, auth or scope requirements, and what the call returns on failure.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE verb and the consequence warning immediately after. No filler, and the external reference is the last item where it belongs.

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 write tool with a nested unstructured body, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers risk and payload handling but leaves the actual body shape entirely to an external URL. An agent cannot construct a valid entry from the definition alone, which is a meaningful gap.

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 coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does add genuine meaning by stating the object is sent verbatim as the request body and pointing to the official endpoint reference for field structure, but it never enumerates or constrains the nested fields an agent must supply.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (creates a journal entry), pins the target system and API version, and prefixes with an explicit WRITE marker that separates it from read-side siblings like list_ledger_entries. Nothing about intent is ambiguous.

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 conveys the context (booking a journal entry in Holded accounting) and warns to double-check accounts and amounts, but never states when to prefer this over alternatives or what prerequisites exist — e.g. whether accounts must exist first via list_accounting_accounts, or how it relates to list_ledger_entries.

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