Run a saved user journey

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: it never accepts steps/credentials (uses saved config), queues the run and returns immediately (async), and checks accessibility. It does not mention errors or rate limits, but overall good transparency.

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 well-structured sentences with no waste. Front-loaded with the main action and sequentially covers details, all essential.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, async queuing) and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently explains the flow, return value, and next step. Could mention that the journey must exist, but not critical.

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%, so parameters have descriptions. The description adds unique context that steps and credentials come from the journey's saved configuration, not from parameters, which is valuable beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool replays a saved multi-step journey and checks accessibility at each step. It uses specific verbs ('replays') and resource ('saved journey'), and distinguishes from sibling get_journey_run by noting it returns a runId for polling.

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?

Provides clear context: used to replay a journey, mentions plan requirements (Pro+), and directs to poll with get_journey_run. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the sibling context and explicit flow mitigate this.

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