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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, indicating mutation. The description says 'Set or change' which aligns with that. It adds some context by mentioning required inputs, but it does not disclose the consequences of the mutation (e.g., what gets overwritten), permission requirements, or idempotency behavior. With annotations covering safety, this is moderately transparent but not rich.

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 two sentences: one stating the action, the second stating input requirements. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place. No waste.

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 should ideally explain return values or side effects. It mentions required inputs but does not cover what happens on success/failure, nor potential side effects. Given the complexity (nested input, destructive annotation), it is adequate but incomplete.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning by specifying that expectedVersion is required and that at least one of mode, goal, or retagTiming must be provided. These parameters are not described in the schema's visible fields (they are inside the nested 'input' object with additionalProperties true), so the description compensates well.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Set or change the journey intake answers on the workspace.' This is clear enough for an agent to understand what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like start_sulvo_revenue_onboarding or get_sulvo_revenue_onboarding_status, so it misses the top score.

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 provides usage constraints by stating required input: 'Input requires expectedVersion plus at least one of mode, goal, retagTiming.' This implies when the tool can be used, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond those input constraints.

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