delete_journal

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.