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

Annotations declare write/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, and the description adds genuinely new context: the sample is 'paid' (consumes credits bounded by credit caps) and 'Does not publish' (creates a review artifact rather than a live post). That billing and no-publish behavior is not in the annotations and is valuable. It could go further on what the sample contains.

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 tightly packed sentences with the core action front-loaded and constraints following. No filler. The phrase 'Only edited source images' is slightly cryptic but overall efficient.

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 annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a four-required-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description omits parameter meaning and preconditions (e.g., a prepared recipe existing), leaving gaps an agent must fill elsewhere.

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 four required parameters (brandId, automationId, revision, idempotencyKey). The description loosely implies a saved recipe (automationId/revision) but never explains revision semantics, the idempotencyKey, or brandId. With zero schema documentation this leaves the caller to infer parameter 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+resource (generate an edit-image automation sample) and clarifies it operates on the saved recipe with its credit caps. The clause 'the saved automation type must match this tool' implicitly differentiates it from the many sibling generate_*_automation_sample tools. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the purpose is clear.

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 some routing context: it must match the saved automation type, and it does not publish. However it never names the alternatives (e.g., prepare_edit_image_automation or the other generate_*_automation_sample siblings) nor states prerequisites such as needing a saved recipe first. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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