Create Journey

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint), the description reveals key behaviors: node IDs are auto-converted to UUIDs, terminal nodes use 'success'/'failure' as connection targets, and the tool returns a mapping of original IDs to UUIDs. This adds significant context not covered by annotations.

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 two sentences, both dense with information. It front-loads the upsert nature and then provides two critical behavioral details (ID transformation, terminal nodes). No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 complexity (nested objects, 5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers core behavior, transformation, and return value. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., realm existence) or potential validation issues. The schema handles structure, but a bit more context on error scenarios would improve completeness.

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?

Even though the input schema has 100% coverage, the description adds critical meaning: node IDs can be human-readable and will be transformed to UUIDs, identityResource format is reinforced, and the journeyData structure with entryNodeId and nodes is clarified. The terminal node convention ('success'/'failure') is also explained, which is not fully captured in 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?

The description clearly states 'Create or replace an authentication journey' with the specific resource type (journey) and action (create/replace). It distinguishes from sibling tools like createCorsPolicy or createOidcApp by focusing on journeys and mentioning the upsert nature.

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 explains the upsert behavior ('if a journey with the same name already exists, it is overwritten'), which implicitly guides when to use this tool (create or full replace). However, it does not explicitly compare with updateJourney or mention when not to use it (e.g., for partial updates).

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