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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds concrete behavioral detail beyond them: the operation replaces the recipe wholesale and invalidates the reviewed sample, and it explicitly does not generate or publish. Auth requirements and rate limits are not mentioned, keeping it at 4.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the scope exclusion and type constraint. No filler, though terseness leaves some claims (e.g. the type match) unexplained.

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 destructive mutation with an output schema present, the description covers the essential semantics: what is replaced, what is invalidated, and what it does not do. Missing parameter-level detail is the main gap, but return values are already handled by the output schema.

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 params, including a deeply nested recipe object. The description only references the recipe conceptually and the automation-type match, explaining nothing about brandId, automationId, revision, idempotencyKey, or any recipe field, so it fails to 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 states a specific verb and resource: replace the automation's recipe, with the side effect of invalidating the reviewed sample. It also scopes the tool to background-removal automations, cleanly separating it from the many update_* and generate_* siblings an agent must choose between.

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 generate or publish" and "the saved automation type must match this tool" give clear when-to-use and a prerequisite, implicitly routing generation to the generate_* siblings. It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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