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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower, but the description still adds lifecycle context annotations cannot express: the created journey remains a draft until publish_journey is called. It omits validation failure behavior and whether repeated calls create duplicates, but the draft-state disclosure is genuinely useful beyond the structured data.

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, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and followed by the lifecycle constraint and the routing advice in order of importance.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it produces, its lifecycle state, and sibling routing, which is enough to call it correctly given the richly documented schema. It would be stronger if it noted whether the definition is validated or what happens on an invalid step definition.

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 the single 'definition' parameter is documented in exhaustive detail (trigger enums, step types, step count bounds). The phrase 'a full definition' adds only a hint that an existing complete journey document can be reused, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Saves a new draft journey') and immediately names the sibling that advances it ('publish_journey') plus the two lighter-weight alternatives ('a recipe or generate_journey'). An agent can distinguish this from create_journey_from_recipe, generate_journey, and publish_journey 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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool when a recipe or generate_journey would suffice, which is real selection guidance. It stops short of stating the condition under which a hand-authored full definition is actually required (e.g. custom step types like branch/wait_event), so the 'when to use this one' side 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.