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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the concrete consequence: people re-enter and emails are sent again. That is real behavioral value beyond the annotation flags, though it omits the confirm-preview flow and irreversibility details.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the action and the side effect. No filler and every clause 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the missing 'what actually happens' context. It stops short of describing prerequisites (e.g. journey must be paused) or reversibility, leaving minor gaps.

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%, including a detailed confirm parameter that explains the preview-then-confirm pattern, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about journeyId or confirm; baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource (turn a paused journey back on) and describes the effect, which separates it from pause_journey and publish_journey. The 'with its live version' clause gestures at the distinction from restore_journey but does not fully spell it out.

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?

Usage is implied by 'paused journey' — the agent can infer this applies only to paused journeys. But no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of sibling alternatives like restore_journey or publish_journey, so routing is left to inference.

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