journey_define

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the add-or-replace behavior and the dependency on screen_register/project_validate, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects of replacing a journey, error conditions, or what response to expect, leaving some critical behaviors unspecified.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action phrase, and no filler. The parenthetical efficiently explains the domain concept, and the second sentence directly states a critical dependency. Every word earns its place.

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 is complex with nested objects, and the description provides the essential mental model (state machine, screen registration order). It wisely leaves detailed parameter shapes to the rich schema, so the agent has enough to select and use the tool correctly, though it omits details about return values or validation behavior.

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 provides detailed structure and has 100% coverage with a brief 'journey definition' description, but the tool description enriches this by explaining that states reference screens and events move between states. This adds domain semantics beyond the raw schema, helping the agent understand how to construct the journey object.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add or replace a journey'. It further clarifies the concept as 'a state machine' with states and events, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like screen_register that handle screens. This precisely states what the tool does.

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 indicates a prerequisite for using this tool: screens must be registered via screen_register before project_validate passes. This implicitly tells when to use this tool (after screen registration) and relates it to other tools, though it does not explicitly explain when not to use it.

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