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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: delivery can publish to connected channels and generation consumes credit caps. It stops short of 5 by not saying what gets destroyed or how resumption interacts with existing runs.

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 each adds a distinct fact (recipe/caps, delivery side effect, type constraint). No filler, though the last clause is slightly cryptic.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a destructive, idempotent mutation with 0% parameter coverage, the definition leaves the four required inputs entirely unexplained, which is a real gap.

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 full burden for four required parameters, yet it explains none of them. brandId, revision, automationId and idempotencyKey are all left for the agent to infer, and the reference to 'saved recipe'/'credit caps' does not map to any parameter.

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 (resume) and resource (recurring generation via saved recipe), and the clause 'the saved automation type must match this tool' hints at the family of type-specific resume tools, aiding differentiation. It does not name an actual sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides constraints ('Only written campaign sections', automation type must match), which implies when the tool is applicable, but never states when to use it versus activate_*, pause_*, or the other resume_* variants. Usage is inferred rather than explicit.

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