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

Adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: this is a paid operation consuming credits ('its credit caps'), and it explicitly does not publish. These complement the annotation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) without contradicting it, though it omits what gets produced or how failures/credits behave.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and constraints follow. The fragment 'Only images with backgrounds removed' is slightly terse but still clear.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the non-publish/credit behavior is covered. But with 4 required params at 0% schema coverage and no explanation of revision or idempotencyKey, the description leaves a meaningful gap for a paid, idempotency-keyed generation call.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only indirectly references automationId ('saved recipe,' 'automation type must match'). brandId, revision, and especially idempotencyKey (which underpins the idempotentHint) are left unexplained, leaving the agent to infer their meaning.

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 resource ('Generate a paid review sample using the saved recipe') and scopes it to this automation type via 'the saved automation type must match this tool,' which separates it from the ~20 same-shaped generate_*_automation_sample siblings. It does not name a sibling tool outright, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

Gives preconditions ('only images with backgrounds removed,' automation type must match) and clarifies 'Does not publish,' implying a later approval step. However, it never names the alternative tools (prepare_background_removal_automation, approve_automation_sample) or states when to pick this over them, so usage is only implied.

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