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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the call spends no credits, generates no content, and does not publish, plus that the result is an inactive draft. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, but the credit/publish side-effects are genuinely additive context.

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 action, then effects, then the type constraint. No filler, though the third sentence is cryptic enough that it reads more as a warning than usable structure.

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, and the description covers the safety profile. However, for a tool with a deeply nested required payload and zero field documentation, it omits everything an agent would need to populate the recipe correctly.

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 three required parameters, one of which is a large nested 'recipe' object with dozens of undescribed fields. The description says nothing about brandId, recipe, or idempotencyKey, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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: saving an inactive review draft for an automation. It partially separates itself from the generate_*_sample siblings by declaring it does not generate content, but it never explicitly contrasts with update_* or activate_* siblings, which also act on the same automation.

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 (draft the automation before activation) and one hard constraint is given ('the saved automation type must match this tool'), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no naming of alternatives such as activate_* or update_*.

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