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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond them: it will not activate or generate, future publishing is held, and the idempotency key should be reused. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures. It stops short of stating required permissions or exactly what state changes occur to the recipe.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and each carries distinct information without padding. 'Reuse the idempotency key' is terse and useful.

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?

For a mutation tool with a heavily nested schema and an output schema present, the description omits the single most complex input (recipe) and offers no prerequisites or validation notes. An output schema covers return values, but the input-side completeness is poor given the 0% schema description coverage.

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% across 5 required parameters, including a large nested 'recipe' object that the description never mentions. Only 'revision' and 'idempotencyKey' are addressed in prose, leaving brandId, automationId, and the entire recipe payload undocumented anywhere except the schema types.

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 verb+resource is present (update the automation revision), but 'expected automation revision' is jargon that a reader must decode, and the description does not distinguish this from siblings like set_automation_delivery, control_automation, or prepare_automation. The added 'return delivery to review' gives a concrete behavior, but the core purpose remains only partially clear.

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?

'Does not activate or generate' and 'Existing future automated publishing is held' provide useful negative guidance about scope, but no explicit when-to-use condition or named alternative is given. The agent must infer when this is preferable to set_automation_delivery or control_automation.

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