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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful non-structured behavior: the draft is inactive, no content is generated, no credits are spent, and nothing is published. It does not explain the idempotencyKey's role or permission requirements, but the safety profile is well covered.

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 and the most decision-relevant constraint (no spend, no publish) 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 described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a tool with a large nested recipe object at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves most input semantics and the relationship to activate_/update_ siblings unstated, so it is only minimally complete.

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 a 3-param tool with a deeply nested recipe object (mode, caps, timezone, attachmentIds, configuration, etc.). The description only hints that attachmentIds should be resized source images and that the automation type must match; brandId, idempotencyKey, and the many recipe fields are left entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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 action (save an inactive review draft) and pins the resource via 'Only resized source images', which ties it to the smart-resize automation type rather than the other 20+ prepare_* siblings. The verb 'save' vs. the tool name 'prepare' is a minor mismatch, but the automation-type constraint makes the target unambiguous.

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?

The description implies this is a preview/draft step ('Does not generate content, spend credits or publish') but never names the alternatives (activate_*, update_*, generate_*_sample) or states the conditions under which an agent should choose this tool over them. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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