restart_journeyUse only when the user explicitly asks to start a journey over, after confirming with them. Returns to the first step and clears the visited stops; turns already used stay used. Returns the same session contract as open_journey.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | The journey slug, when you hold that instead of the id. | |
| locale | No | Preferred locale. | |
| capsule_id | No | The journey id (uuid or short id). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds the exact scope of destruction: visited stops are cleared while already-used turns stay used. That 'what survives vs what is lost' detail is precisely the context annotations cannot convey, and it is not contradicted anywhere.
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 safety gate ('use only when... after confirming') before the state effects and the return contract. No filler and no repetition of the title.
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?
No output schema exists, and the return value is described only by reference ('same session contract as open_journey'), which assumes the agent knows that sibling's shape. Everything else an agent needs for a destructive reset is present, so the gap is minor but real.
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%, so slug, locale and capsule_id are already documented with their roles and a locale enum. The description adds no additional parameter semantics such as the slug-vs-id precedence, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('restart a journey') and immediately defines the mechanics: returns to the first step and clears visited stops. This clearly distinguishes it from open_journey (fresh start) and take_journey_step (advance), so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.
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?
Gives an explicit gating condition ('Use only when the user explicitly asks to start a journey over') plus a required prerequisite ('after confirming with them'). The implicit alternative for a non-reset start is open_journey, which is named in the return-contract sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.