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

Annotations cover the safety profile (write, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: no content generation, no credit spend, no publishing, and that the result is an inactive draft. It stops short of explaining idempotency semantics or what "inactive" means operationally.

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, front-loaded sentences with minimal waste, leading with the action and following with exclusions. Sized appropriately for the information it actually conveys, even if that information is thin.

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?

For a tool with a deeply nested, entirely undocumented recipe object and a required idempotencyKey, the description is far too sparse. The output schema covers return values, but the description does nothing to help an agent populate the complex input 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%, so the description carries the full burden for parameters, yet it explains none of the recipe fields, brandId, or idempotencyKey. The single constraint ("only images with backgrounds removed") is not tied to any field such as attachmentRoles or configuration.

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?

The description says it saves an "inactive review draft" but never names what kind of draft – it relies on the tool name to convey that it's a background-removal automation. "The saved automation type must match this tool" gestures at the resource without stating it. An agent can infer the purpose, but the description alone is vague about the resource.

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?

It establishes the use context (prepare an inactive draft for review) and rules out side effects, which implies this is the staging step before activation. However, it names no alternatives in the large prepare_/activate_/generate_..._sample sibling family, so the agent must infer when to pick this over activate_background_removal_automation or generate_background_removal_automation_sample.

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