plan_user_journey

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly declares no side effects, that the plan names tools but calls none, and that identity or exact-copy language triggers a clarification request. This is solid disclosure, though it does not describe the returned plan format or any auth/rate limits.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then adds side effects, an example, and edge cases in compact form. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage. The description covers side effects and edge cases, but leaves the return shape and journey_type semantics unspecified, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the plan's contents.

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% and parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description supplies an example mapping the arguments (journey_type='sequence_drums', traits='half time, dark') and an edge-case constraint, but does not explain the journey_type enum values or the traits format and max length.

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 and resource: plan a capability-aware guided journey. The side-effects sentence clarifies that it plans rather than executes, distinguishing it from execution siblings. However, 'fixed stage grid' is jargon and the journey_type options are not explained, so it is not fully self-contained.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given relative to siblings like music_plan_production or the music_generate_* tools. The example implies a scenario but does not state selection criteria or prerequisites.

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