scf_import_journey

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the merge-by-stage-key behavior, that attestations survive, that dropping an attested stage is refused with 409, and that an uploaded template wins outright. This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance an agent needs to predict side effects and error conditions.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The core action and role are front-loaded, followed by the most critical behavioral rules (merge, 409, precedence). Every sentence earns its place and the description is compact despite the complex nested schema.

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 write tool with a complex nested template object, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: merge semantics, error conditions, and precedence. It doesn't explain the return value, but there is no output schema and the description's focus on behavior is appropriate. The ADMIN role requirement and 409 behavior are the most important contextual details, and both are present.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the precedence relationship between `template` and `template_key` ('An uploaded `template` wins outright' and 'Ignored when `template` is supplied'), which is not fully captured in the schema. It also clarifies the merge semantics that affect how `template.stages` is interpreted.

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 states a specific verb ('Set or re-issue'), a clear resource ('the org's journey'), and the source ('from a template'). It also distinguishes itself from related tools by noting the write nature and ADMIN role, which separates it from read-only journey tools like scf_get_journey and scf_list_journey_templates.

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 description clearly indicates when to use this tool: to set or re-issue a journey from a template, with ADMIN role required. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context signals and sibling list make it clear this is the write counterpart to read-only journey tools. The merge behavior and 409 refusal provide practical guidance on when this tool is appropriate.

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