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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description corroborates the destructive semantics by framing the call as replacing the complete journey. Beyond that, it usefully discloses that switching to 'active' in plan mode stops configuration tracking without publishing a service, while in page mode 'active' publishes the collection page and 'paused' closes it — non-obvious side effects not derivable from the schema. It stops short of stating irreversibility or required permissions.

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 with the overwrite semantics front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is dense and terse ('termine le suivi des configurations'), and the description is in French while the tool name and schema keys are in English, which adds parsing friction but no wasted content.

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, high-complexity tool with six top-level parameters, a large nested object, no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition is far too thin. Critical operational details — how `version` and `requestId` behave on conflict/retry, what happens to omitted config fields during a full replacement, and what the response contains — are absent.

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% for a deeply nested config object containing roughly twenty sub-properties, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It sheds light only on the interaction between mode and status values; the meaning of id, name, version (likely optimistic concurrency), requestId (likely idempotency), and the plan/recovery/variantB objects is left entirely unexplained.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Remplacer le parcours complet'), making clear this is a full-overwrite operation on a sales journey rather than a partial patch. It does not name or contrast with the obvious siblings create_sales_journey, get_sales_journey or describe_sales_journeys, and the phrase 'avec sa version actuelle' is ambiguous, but an agent can still identify the operation.

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 second sentence explains what happens behaviorally in 'plan' versus 'page' mode, but never says when an agent should call update_sales_journey instead of create_sales_journey, or when to fetch state first with get_journey_plan_state/get_sales_journey. No preconditions, no exclusions, no alternatives are given, so the agent must infer call conditions from context alone.

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