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

Goes well past the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing exactly what is destroyed (enrollees exit, queued sends are cancelled) and what survives (history is retained and can be restored, in a paused state). For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation this is the precise lifecycle context an agent needs.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive effect stated first and the recovery path second. Every clause conveys a distinct fact.

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, yet the description covers the observable effects, what persists, and how to undo the action, which is everything needed to call this single-parameter destructive tool responsibly.

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?

The single journeyId parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Journey id from list_journeys'), so the schema carries the load and the description adds nothing about the parameter. Baseline 3 applies when coverage is 100%.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a journey') and immediately scopes what that means operationally, which separates it from siblings like discard_journey_draft, stop_journey_run, pause_journey and restore_journey. An agent can pick this tool without opening any other definition.

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?

It signals the reversal path explicitly ('restore_journey brings it back paused'), which gives the agent a clear alternative to consider before deleting. It stops short of stating when deletion is preferred over pause_journey or stop_journey_run, so the choice among the journey-state siblings is still inferred.

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