create_user_journey

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the output is a horizontal map with color-coded emotions and returns an absolute path to an .excalidraw file, but it does not describe potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files, creating parent directories), error handling if invalid emotion values are passed, or whether the output path defaults to a specific location. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening, a compact Args list, and a Returns line. All information is relevant and front-loaded; no wasted words or redundancy.

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 the essential behavior (horizontal journey map, emotion indicators, output path) and key parameters. It doesn't explain the steps array structure beyond what the schema provides, but that is covered. For a creation tool, this is sufficiently complete to enable correct invocation.

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 schema already provides detailed descriptions for every parameter (e.g., emotion allowed values, title, output_path). The description repeats these details without adding new semantics. Since schema coverage is 0% (description adds no extra value), baseline 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't compensate further.

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 exactly what it does: 'Create a user journey map' and elaborates with 'horizontal journey map showing steps with emotion indicators.' This clearly distinguishes it from other diagram tools among siblings (flowchart, sequence diagram, etc.) which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage (when you need a user journey map) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. It lacks guidance such as 'use this instead of create_flowchart when you need emotion-based steps,' leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and description.

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