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

Goes beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint) by naming the specific destructive consequence ('invalidate its reviewed sample') and stating a precondition ('the saved automation type must match this tool'). This adds real context about what is lost and what constraints apply.

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 mutation action, followed by scope exclusions and the type-match precondition. Minimal waste, though the fragments ('Only written campaign sections') read a bit clipped.

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 explained, and the description covers the sample-invalidation and type-match precondition. The gap is parameter intent: with 0% schema coverage on 5 required fields, an agent still lacks guidance on revision/idempotency semantics.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only references 'recipe' generically. Required params brandId, automationId, revision, and idempotencyKey are neither explained nor mentioned, and the complex nested recipe fields remain undocumented.

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+resource ('Replace this automation's recipe') and clarifies scope with 'Does not generate or publish' and 'Only written campaign sections'. The phrase 'the saved automation type must match this tool' hints at differentiation from image-based sibling automations, though no specific sibling is named.

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?

Implies usage by ruling out generation/publishing ('Does not generate or publish'), which steers the agent away from generate_campaign_generator_automation_sample and activate_*. However, no explicit when-to-use condition or named alternative is given, so the routing is left to inference.

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