Draft a journey

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

The description reveals that the draft sends nothing, requires an author key (ek_mcpa_), returns specific problems for invalid plans, and is labelled machine-written in the dashboard. This adds significant context beyond the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), which only declare basic safety flags.

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 four sentences long, with each sentence adding unique value: purpose, prerequisite, safety workflow, auth and error handling. There is no redundant content or filler.

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?

The description covers prerequisites, side effects, auth, and error handling, which is thorough for a single-parameter tool. However, since there is no output schema, it omits the success return value (e.g., a draft ID or confirmation), which is a minor but notable gap.

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?

The only parameter 'plan' is described in the schema with a pointer to the journey-plan-schema resource, and the tool description reinforces this by telling the agent to read that resource for format and a worked example. This compensates for the schema's minimal 'additionalProperties' constraint.

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 opens with 'Create a DRAFT journey from a plan', using a specific verb and resource with clear scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (list/describe/generate/mark/get) as the only creation tool.

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 instructs the agent to read the payghaam://journey-plan-schema resource first, establishing a clear prerequisite. It also explains the draft-review-activation workflow, providing context. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but none of the siblings serve the same purpose, so the use case is unambiguous.

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