journey_define

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation as 'add or replace' and the state machine structure, but does not specify whether replacement is idempotent, error handling, or immediate side effects beyond validation dependency.

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 concise sentences: first explains purpose and core concept, second provides critical prerequisite. No redundant words; every sentence 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?

Given the complexity of the nested schema (multiple required fields) and no output schema, the description explains the overall concept and prerequisite. It lacks details on return value or effects post-operation, but is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role in the workflow.

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%, so the schema already describes the journey object well. The description adds high-level semantic context (state machine with screens and events) and the prerequisite, enhancing understanding beyond the raw 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 explicitly states the tool adds or replaces a journey defined as a state machine. It distinguishes from siblings like screen_register by noting the prerequisite of screen registration, establishing clear responsibility.

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?

It provides a clear prerequisite (screens must be registered before project_validate) guiding when to use screen_register first. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the implicit sibling context.

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