trigger_customer_journey

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds key behavioral context: side effect of immediate email sending, required subscription, and error handling for missing subscription or invalid step. It does not contradict annotations and enriches the safety profile for an agent.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, followed by side effect, prerequisites, alternatives, error info, and parameter details. It is concise but covers all key aspects. Minor redundancy (subscription requirement repeated) and missing account param prevent a top score.

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 has an output schema and good annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter details, errors, and side effects. It lacks description of the optional 'account' parameter and does not mention potential rate limits or permissions, but is otherwise comprehensive for a 4-parameter tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides useful semantics for the three required parameters (journey_id, step_id, email_address), including how to find journey IDs, valid step types, and subscription requirement. However, the optional 'account' parameter is not mentioned, leaving a gap for that parameter.

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 clearly states the tool triggers a contact into a specific step of a Customer Journey workflow. It uses a specific verb ('Trigger') and resource ('contact into a step of a Customer Journey') and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming alternatives: 'start_automation' for Classic Automations and 'send_campaign'/'create_campaign' for one-time emails.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including prerequisites (contact must be subscribed), side effects (emails start immediately), alternative tools (list_automations, start_automation, send_campaign, create_campaign), and error conditions (not subscribed, invalid step). This gives an agent clear decision criteria.

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