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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real value beyond them: the sample draws on 'credit caps' (a cost/side-effect warning) and explicitly 'Does not publish,' clarifying that generation is not the same as going live.

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, then scope constraints. Nothing is padded, though the final clause is slightly compressed and could be clearer about what 'match' means.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is parameter meaning for a 4-required-param mutation, which the description does not address, leaving an agent to infer revision and idempotencyKey semantics.

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% with 4 required parameters (brandId, automationId, revision, idempotencyKey), so the description carries the full burden. It explains none of them — 'saved recipe' loosely gestures at automationId, but revision, brandId, and idempotencyKey are entirely undocumented.

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') plus the recipe/credit-cap basis. The clause 'Only vertical story artwork; the saved automation type must match this tool' partially differentiates it from the many sibling generate_*_automation_sample tools, though it never names a sibling directly.

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 one scope condition ('the saved automation type must match this tool') and one negative behavior ('Does not publish'), which implies usage. It never names an alternative tool (e.g. the publish/approve path or prepare_story_creator_automation) or states prerequisites such as needing a saved recipe first.

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