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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, so the safety/write profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it runs under saved credit caps (cost boundary), and previously approved automatic delivery may publish to connected channels (an externally visible side effect), plus the source-image precondition.

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, each carrying a distinct constraint (cap behavior, delivery side effect, eligibility + type match). Slightly telegraphic, but front-loaded and free of 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 the destructive/openWorld behavior is well covered. However, for a destructive mutation with 0% documented parameters, the description leaves the calling contract under-specified — particularly why revision and idempotencyKey are required.

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 all four required parameters (brandId, automationId, revision, idempotencyKey) are undocumented anywhere. The description alludes to 'the saved recipe' and 'the saved automation type,' loosely gesturing at automationId, but it never explains revision (concurrency token) or idempotencyKey semantics, which an agent must supply correctly.

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 for an edit-image automation), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the many sibling resume_* tools with 'the saved automation type must match this tool.' It never says 'edit image' outright, relying on the tool name for the automation-family identity, but the type-match constraint removes most ambiguity.

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?

Gives one precondition ('Only edited source images') and implies this resumes a previously saved/paused automation, but offers no guidance on when to use this versus activate_edit_image_automation, prepare_edit_image_automation, or update_edit_image_automation, which are the closest siblings.

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