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

Annotations only say it is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds real behavioral value: completed actions are not replayed, parallel branches are covered, and the timeout/external-effect caveat warns about duplicated side effects. It does not describe what state the run must be in or what the call returns.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the safety caveat last. No filler, though the description is written in French while the tool name, title, and all siblings are in English.

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 an open-world mutation with no output schema and zero-documented parameters, the definition covers behavior but leaves identifier semantics and the expected result of a retry unstated. Adequate to call it, not fully adequate to call it correctly the first time.

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 0% for both required parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about what 'id' (integer) versus 'runId' (string) refer to, leaving the agent to guess which identifier identifies the journey and which the run.

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 specific verb and scoped resource: it resumes only the failed jobs of a marketing journey, including parallel branches. That scope (failed jobs only, completed actions not replayed) distinguishes it well from run_flow or control_run, though no sibling is named 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?

It gives one useful precondition (verify external effects after a timeout before resuming), which implies when to be cautious. But it never says when to use this instead of control_run, run_flow, or get_run, so the agent must infer the routing decision.

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