generate_journey_storyboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does not carry it. It is ambiguous whether the tool modifies the document (linking screens by creating/modifying nodes) or produces a standalone report. It does not state what the return value is, whether fileId is required for mutation, or any side effects — a significant gap for a generative tool.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with zero wasted words. It is appropriately compact for the information conveyed, though the brevity comes partly at the expense of behavioral depth.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the return value of the generated storyboard, what occurs when fileId is omitted, or how artboardId relates to the screens being linked. An agent invoking this tool would be uncertain about both the result and the side effects. Several close siblings heighten the need for more context.

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 baseline is 3. The parameters (steps, fileId, flowTitle) are already documented in the schema. The description hints at how steps map to 'step indicators, user goals, and action annotations', which adds modest meaning, but it does not elaborate on artboardId semantics or the role of fileId. It barely exceeds what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Generates') and resource ('a structured user journey storyboard'), and lists the components it produces: step indicators, user goals, action annotations. This is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the semantically close sibling connect_artboards_flow, which also deals with linking screens in a flow.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given close siblings like connect_artboards_flow (linking screens) and generate_design_spec_doc (producing design documentation), an agent has no way to know which one fits a given intent. No exclusions or selection criteria are provided.

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