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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that memory, credentials, and history survive the pause. It stops short of describing what happens to in-flight runs or how to resume.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the preservation guarantee follows immediately.

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 single-parameter state-change tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is the absence of lifecycle guidance about when pausing is appropriate versus resuming or re-running.

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% for the single journeyId parameter ('Owned journey ID'), so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about the identifier beyond the existing 'owned' qualifier, which matches the baseline for full coverage.

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 and resource ('Pause an owned journey'), making the operation unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the obvious sibling resume_journey or explain the inverse relationship.

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 only implied — the agent can infer this applies to an active journey, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., journey must be running), and no routing to alternatives like resume_journey or run_journey.

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