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

Adds context beyond annotations: the new journey is created but not published, and the agent must inspect the status in the reply. The 'not idempotent' statement echoes idempotentHint=false, and the GraphQL mutation name is minor, but the publish/status behavior is genuinely useful and not encoded anywhere else.

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?

Front-loads the WRITE marker, then purpose, then idempotency, then the publish caveat in four tight sentences with no filler. Every clause carries distinct information.

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 non-destructive write with no output schema, the description covers input sourcing, idempotency, and post-call verification. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented. The description only reinforces that journey_type_id is required and journey_template_id optional; it adds nothing on custom_date, pre_onboarding_access or personal_email. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('create an onboarding/offboarding journey for an employee') plus the source of inputs (journey type, optional template). This clearly separates it from read-side siblings like kiwihr_get_journey and kiwihr_list_journeys.

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?

Explicitly points the agent to kiwihr_list_journey_types and kiwihr_list_journey_templates to obtain the required ids before calling, which is real routing guidance. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-create guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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