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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation is irreversible and imposes a mandatory safety workflow: show the user the transaction details and obtain explicit confirmation before calling. This is excellent transparency for a destructive operation.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and irreversibility, then gives the specific confirmation requirement. Every sentence contributes essential operational context.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers what is deleted, that it cannot be undone, and what must be done before invoking it. It does not describe success or error behavior, but with no output schema and low complexity this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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%; the single `id` parameter is already described as '削除する仕訳のID'. The description adds no extra information about ID format, source, or validation, so the schema is doing the work and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action and target: it deletes a journal entry (仕訳) in Money Forward Cloud Accounting. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool delete_voucher, so an agent may still be uncertain which delete operation to select.

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 provides strong pre-call guidance: it states the operation cannot be undone and requires explicit user confirmation with target journal details presented beforehand. However, it does not describe when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as delete_voucher or post_vouchers.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it adds the valuable clarification that the operation is non-destructive on the file itself (only removes the link), which goes beyond the tool name. However, it does not disclose permission requirements, response format, or whether the operation is reversible — gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single compact sentence with one parenthetical clarification. The critical semantic distinction (detach, not delete) is front-loaded, and there is minimal waste, though the parenthetical does add some length.

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 simple two-parameter tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics and the key non-deletion distinction well. Nothing critical is missing for correctly invoking the tool.

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%, and both parameters (journal_id, voucher_file_id) carry their own schema descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 names a specific operation — detaching (添付解除) a voucher file from a journal entry in Money Forward Cloud Accounting — with a clear verb and resource. The parenthetical explicitly states it removes the association rather than deleting the file, which distinguishes it from the sibling delete_journal and resolves the ambiguity inherent in the name 'delete_voucher'.

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 parenthetical clarifies the semantics ('not file deletion but link removal'), which implies this is not the tool for actually deleting files. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not conditions; the routing away from delete_journal is implied rather than stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that files are specified by local absolute path, are loaded server-side, and sent as base64, and notably states that file contents do not pass through the LLM—a valuable privacy/security detail. It does not mention permissions or potential side effects beyond attachment, but the core behavior is clear and informative.

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, well-organized sentence that front-loads the action and then explains the file-handling mechanism. There is no wasted wording, and the key technical detail (base64, no LLM exposure) is included without bloating the text.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: the action, the file types, the path requirement, and the transmission method. It does not explicitly mention error scenarios or return values, but these are less critical given the straightforward nature of the operation and the absence of an 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with descriptions for both file_paths and journal_id in the schema itself. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema; it repeats the absolute path concept but does not enhance it. This is the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action: attach voucher files (PDF/image) to a journal entry in Money Forward Cloud Accounting. It specifies the resource (journal entry) and the object being attached (files), distinguishing it from sibling tools that delete. The verb 'attach' is specific and 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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when attaching voucher files to a journal) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools are delete operations, so the purpose is clearly different, but the tool lacks an explicit statement like 'Use this instead of delete_voucher when adding attachments.'

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