post_vouchers

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.