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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context beyond them: it consumes paid credits with credit caps, produces a sample rather than publishing, and only accepts retouched source images requiring matching automation type.

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, all load-bearing, with the core action front-loaded and the key caveats ('does not publish', image/type constraints) stated immediately after. No filler.

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 explained, but a mutation tool with four required parameters at 0% schema coverage and no explicit guidance on its prerequisite lifecycle stage is under-specified. The agent knows what it produces but not how the inputs are sourced or how this fits with prepare/activate/approve.

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% and there are four required parameters (brandId, automationId, revision, idempotencyKey), yet the description never addresses any of them by name or format. 'Saved recipe' loosely hints at automationId, but brandId, revision, and idempotencyKey are left entirely undocumented in both places.

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') and adds distinguishing constraints ('does not publish', 'only retouched source images', automation type must match). This lets an agent separate it from the parallel generate_*_automation_sample siblings, though it never names a sibling 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?

Usage is implied by the constraints ('saved recipe', 'must match this tool'), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus prepare_retouch_automation, activate_retouch_automation, or approve_automation_sample, which are obvious alternatives in the retouch lifecycle. The agent must infer placement in the workflow.

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