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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description usefully adds that no publish occurs and that output is limited to written campaign sections. It does not, however, explain what the credit caps do, what a non-match failure looks like, or what happens to the existing sample on regeneration.

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 sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the two constraint clauses. Efficient, though slightly telegraphic in the second clause.

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 needn't be described, but with four required, fully undocumented parameters and only annotations for behavioral guidance, the definition leaves an agent without enough to invoke it correctly — especially the meaning of revision and the automation-type matching requirement.

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% across all 4 parameters, so the burden falls on the description, which provides essentially no parameter meaning. Terms like 'saved recipe', 'revision', 'automationId' and 'credit caps' are mentioned in passing but never tied to the actual inputs, leaving revision, brandId and idempotencyKey unexplained.

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 (Generate) and resource (paid review sample via saved recipe and credit caps), and the clause 'Only written campaign sections' distinguishes it from the many image-oriented generate_*_automation_sample siblings. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names an alternative by name.

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?

Provides two useful constraints: 'Does not publish' (a when-not boundary) and 'the saved automation type must match this tool' (a precondition). However, it does not direct the agent to the relevant siblings (prepare_campaign_generator_automation, approve_automation_sample, or the other generate_*_automation_sample tools) or say when this sample generation step is appropriate in the workflow.

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