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

Goes well beyond the destructive/openWorld annotations by explaining exactly what publishing does: triggered entry, emails going out, and in-flight people migrating to the new version at their current step without re-sending passed steps. That migration semantics is precisely the kind of consequence an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core effect and then qualifies it with the in-flight migration rule. Every clause carries information, though the sentence is long enough that a second short sentence could improve scannability.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the main effects and the safety preview flow. It stops short of stating irreversibility or what happens to paused/stopped journeys, which would round it out.

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% and the schema itself documents the two-step confirm flow and journeyId source, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full burden.

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 ('Puts the journey ... live') and clarifies the two modes: publishing the journey itself or its draft changes as the next version. It is clearly distinct from pause/resume/stop semantics, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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 confirm-parameter guidance effectively tells the agent to preview before committing, which is strong procedural guidance. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as pause_journey, resume_journey, or discard_journey_draft, so the routing decision is left implicit.

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