brand_build_journey

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that record mode writes to strategy.yaml, defaults are provided, and omitting answers accepts defaults. However, it does not clarify if writing overwrites or merges, nor does it mention error handling 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?

The description is a single paragraph but well-structured: purpose, defaults, modes, usage context, and next steps. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise with bullet points for modes.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple modes, JSON input, file writing) and lack of output schema, the description covers workflow and required steps adequately. It specifies the return of stage definitions and the next tool to invoke, but does not detail output format.

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% for 2 parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the three mode options and how the 'answers' parameter should be structured (JSON array of stage objects). It also clarifies behavior when answers are omitted in record mode.

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 uses a specific verb ('Define') and resource ('buyer journey stages'), clearly stating the tool's purpose of defining the path from first touch to decision. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like brand_build_personas by specifying the usage sequence.

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 states when to use ('Session 4 (content strategy) after personas/themes are sketched') and what to run next ('After this, run brand_build_personas'). Also explains the three modes and when to use each, providing clear guidance.

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