trigger_customer_journey

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It discloses side effects (contact begins receiving emails immediately), prerequisites (subscription), authentication (API key), rate limits (max 10 concurrent requests), support for read-only/dry-run modes, and error conditions (not subscribed or invalid step). This is comprehensive.

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 first sentence, bulleted side effect/alternative sections, and an Args/Returns block. While comprehensive, it could be slightly more concise without losing essential information. However, every sentence serves a purpose.

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 absence of annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: side effects, prerequisites, authentication, rate limits, error handling, parameter details, and return value. It is fully adequate for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, but the description adds meaningful context for each parameter: journey_id's source (Mailchimp web UI or list_automations), step_id's requirement (must be API-trigger entry point), and email_address's condition (must be subscribed). This significantly aids correct invocation.

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 explicitly states the verb and resource ('Trigger a contact into a specific step of a Customer Journey workflow.') and distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives: 'For Classic Automations, use start_automation instead. For one-time emails, use send_campaign or create_campaign instead.'

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 specifies when to use the tool (triggering a contact into a Customer Journey step), when not to use (Classic Automations or one-time emails), and prerequisites (contact must be subscribed member of journey's audience). It also provides guidance on finding journey IDs via list_automations.

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