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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world create operation. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: status active terminates tracking without publishing or executing, mode page keeps historical collection pages, and services are optional/repeatable. It omits permissions, idempotency/requestId behavior, and full side effects, but adds substantial context.

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?

Four sentences are front-loaded with the create action and main plan constraints, with little obvious waste. The unexplained 'suggestedActions' reference and dense semicolon phrasing slightly reduce clarity.

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 create tool with five top-level parameters, deeply nested config, and no output schema, the definition covers the main plan path and active status but leaves major schema areas unexplained, including name, version, requestId, and many optional config fields. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently populate non-plan fields without inspecting the schema.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It mentions goal, title, mode, plan, status, and service rules, but omits required top-level 'name' plus version/requestId and most nested config fields; it also references 'suggestedActions', which is not in the input schema.

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 opens with a specific verb, 'Créer', and a resource, 'suivi d’objectif', and names key config fields, so the action is identifiable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from update_sales_journey or describe_sales_journeys, but the create verb is clear.

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 explains config.mode=plan, status active behavior, and that mode page preserves historical collection pages, giving some when-to-use context. It never names alternatives or states when not to use this tool versus update_sales_journey or list_sales_journeys.

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