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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that previously approved delivery 'can publish to connected channels' (the open-world side effect) and that generation consumes 'credit caps'. It does not explain reversibility or caps behavior in more depth, so it stops short of 5.

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 with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The precondition and side-effect notes are placed after the core statement, which is the right order, though the fragments read a bit telegraphically.

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 description covers purpose, a precondition, and the publish side effect. However, for a destructive, credit-consuming mutation with four opaque required parameters, the absence of any parameter semantics leaves the agent without enough to call it 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% and none of the four required parameters (brandId, automationId, revision, idempotencyKey) are mentioned in the description. In particular the concurrency meaning of 'revision' and the retry semantics of 'idempotencyKey' are left entirely undocumented, so the description does not 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?

The description gives a specific verb (resume) and identifies the resource as recurring generation restricted to replacement image backgrounds, then explicitly states 'Only replacement image backgrounds; the saved automation type must match this tool.' That last clause differentiates it from the many sibling resume_* automation tools, though the phrasing 'recurring generation' is a slightly abstract way to say 'automation run'.

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 provides a precondition ('the saved automation type must match this tool') which implies when the tool applies, but names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not guidance. An agent must infer from the sibling list that other resume_* tools exist for other automation types.

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