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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: no content generation, no credit spend, no publishing, and that the result is an inactive draft – useful for a cost-sensitive agent choosing between tools.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the cost/side-effect guarantees. No filler and no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 annotations carry the safety profile. But for a tool whose input is a large required nested recipe object at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves parameter construction entirely undocumented, plus the idempotency key's role goes unmentioned.

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% and the schema is a deep nested recipe with five required scheduling fields, yet the description says nothing about brandId, recipe structure, or idempotencyKey. The only hint, 'the saved automation type must match this tool', is too vague 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 verb and resource: 'Save an inactive review draft', and scopes it with 'Only vertical story artwork; the saved automation type must match this tool.' An agent can tell this is the prepare step for story-creator automations, distinct from the many activate_/generate_/update_ siblings, though no sibling is named 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?

The negative constraints ('Does not generate content, spend credits or publish') implicitly define when this tool is appropriate versus the sample-generation and activation tools. However, it never explicitly states the prepare-then-activate workflow or names an alternative, so the routing is left partly to inference.

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