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

Annotations already declare idempotency and lack of destructiveness, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-obvious state preconditions (paused state, approved memory) that the annotations do not convey; it stops short of describing failure behavior when the journey is not in that state.

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 sentences, no waste, with the action and precondition front-loaded and the disambiguating clause placed last. 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?

A one-parameter tool with an output schema, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies the missing state preconditions; only failure/error behavior is left implicit.

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% with a single 'Owned journey ID' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the ownership constraint but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond 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?

Specific verb ('Resume') plus resource ('owned paused journey'), with a scope qualifier and an explicit negative boundary ('This does not start a run') that separates it from run_journey. An agent can distinguish this from its siblings without opening a schema.

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?

States the precondition for use (journey must be owned, paused, and have its memory approved) and clarifies it is not the run-triggering tool. It does not name run_journey explicitly as the alternative, keeping it a step short of a 5.

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