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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the restored journey lands in a paused state and will not admit entrants until published, which tells the agent the post-condition. It doesn't say what happens if the journey isn't deleted or isn't found, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

One compact sentence with the action and its consequence front-loaded; every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what it does and the resulting state, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. It stops short of covering error/failure conditions or whether the journey keeps its original contacts and settings.

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 the single journeyId parameter is documented in the schema as coming from list_journeys. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Brings a deleted journey back" is a specific verb+resource, and the description adds the resulting state (paused). It implicitly separates itself from delete_journey/resume_journey/publish_journey by framing the operation as recovery of a deleted journey, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase "deleted journey" implies the prerequisite (the journey must already be deleted), and "until it is published" hints that publish_journey is the follow-up step. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or direct comparison with the closely-related resume_journey and publish_journey tools, which is a real risk given the sibling list.

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