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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond those: it consumes credit caps, can publish via previously approved automatic delivery to connected channels, and only works on enhanced source images of the matching automation type. It does not contradict the annotations, though it still omits specifics such as auth requirements or what publishing may overwrite.

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?

The description is three short sentences and is front-loaded with the action. It is appropriately sized, though the final clause about matching automation type is slightly cryptic and would benefit from a concrete example or clearer phrasing.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described. However, for a four-required-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves all parameter semantics unexplained and does not fully describe what resuming will do to existing runs or deliveries. The annotations cover safety hints, but the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 there are four required parameters: brandId, automationId, revision, and idempotencyKey. The description provides no explanation of any of these parameters, so an agent gets no meaning beyond the schema's type and pattern constraints.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Resume recurring generation using the saved recipe and credit caps.' It also distinguishes this tool from the other resume_* siblings by scoping it to enhanced source images and requiring the saved automation type to match this tool.

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 usage by saying it resumes a saved automation and that the automation type must match this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with prepare_*, activate_*, update_*, or pause_automation, nor does it state when not to use it.

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