Api journeys update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further — no statement about what fields can be mutated, what happens to omitted fields, or whether the whole journey is replaced.

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 text is a bare identifier rather than a sentence; there is no front-loaded purpose statement. This is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 a free-form body object, no output schema, and zero schema coverage on both parameters, the description supplies none of the context an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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% and neither parameter (id, body) is documented in the schema. The description offers no compensating information about what 'id' identifies or what shape/fields 'body' accepts, which is the most critical gap given the opaque free-form object payload.

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 is the string "api_journeys_update", which merely restates the tool name and title. It implies the resource (journeys) and an update operation, but provides no verb-plus-resource explanation of what is actually being updated or on what object.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_journeys_partial_update, journeys_rename_create, journeys_upgrade_create, or journeys_batch_action_create. An agent must infer the difference between full update and partial update entirely from naming conventions.

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