workflow_onboard_journey

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about idempotency, whether an existing journey is overwritten, what happens when 'manifest' is omitted, permissions, or failure modes. For an onboarding/mutation-style tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and source are stated immediately. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse given the complexity it must cover.

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 tool has a deeply nested manifest schema, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is one sentence. It omits manifest requirements, mutation semantics, and result behavior, leaving the agent under-informed for a complex onboarding operation.

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%, so the schema names parameters without documenting them. The description hints that onboarding is driven 'from its manifest', but never explains the relationship between the required journeyId and the optional manifest, nor what omitting manifest does. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (onboard) plus resource (journey) and the source of truth (its manifest), and 'into the local workflow context' scopes the effect. It distinguishes itself from workflow_onboard_repository by resource, though it doesn't explicitly call out that sibling.

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 when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance. The agent must infer that this is the journey analogue of workflow_onboard_repository, and nothing states prerequisites or when the manifest is required vs. omitted.

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