Update Journey

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

Annotations (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true) are consistent. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: fetches current journey, merges metadata, PUTs result, atomic graph replacement with UUID transformation, preservation of unchanged fields. No contradictions.

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 a single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. No fluff.

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?

For a complex tool with 12 parameters and nested objects, the description covers all behavioral aspects: merge strategy, graph replacement conditions, UUID transformation, field preservation, and uiConfig caveat. No output schema but the description explains what happens sufficiently.

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 100% and each parameter has a thorough description. The tool description adds context about the overall update behavior but does not significantly enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update an existing authentication journey' and explains the merge-and-PUT behavior, distinguishing it from createJourney (UUID transformation pipeline) and implicitly from updateJourneyNode (graph replacement vs node update).

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?

Provides clear context for when to provide nodes/entryNodeId (to replace graph) and notes that fields not supplied are preserved. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool vs alternatives like updateJourneyNode, though such guidance can be inferred.

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