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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the operation consumes credits ('paid review sample using ... its credit caps') and does not publish, which matters for an agent deciding whether to run it. It stops short of explaining reversibility or what the sample state becomes.

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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by two constraint clauses. No filler, no repetition of structured fields.

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 carry the safety profile. The gaps are the undocumented parameters (0% coverage) and no explicit routing against the prepare_/activate_ siblings, which leaves the description only adequately complete for a 4-param mutation tool.

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 four required parameters (brandId, automationId, revision, idempotencyKey). The description mentions no parameter by name and adds no format, scope, or meaning for any of them, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, preventing a 1.

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: generating a 'paid review sample' from a saved recipe, with the qualifier that the automation type must match this tool and only resized source images apply. This differentiates it from the many sibling generate_*_automation_sample tools. It does not explicitly name the closest counterpart (e.g. prepare_smart_resize_automation), keeping it short of a 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?

Provides implied usage: generate a sample to review before publishing ('Does not publish'), and the precondition that the saved automation type must match. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives routing (e.g. generate_ vs prepare_ vs activate_), leaving the agent to infer the workflow stage.

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