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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value beyond that: it specifies the concrete destructive effect ('invalidate its reviewed sample') and the effect scope ('Does not generate or publish'), which the annotations cannot express.

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, followed by effect and scope. No filler; every sentence carries information.

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, nested-schema mutation the description covers effects and scope adequately, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. But the void on parameter semantics (revision, idempotencyKey, recipe shape) leaves real gaps for correct 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% across 5 required parameters including a deeply nested recipe object. The description explains none of them, leaving semantics like the optimistic-concurrency role of 'revision', the purpose of 'idempotencyKey', or the recipe structure entirely undocumented anywhere.

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+resource ('Replace this automation's recipe') plus two scoping constraints: it invalidates the reviewed sample, and it applies only to written social posts whose saved type matches. This separates it from the many update_*_automation siblings without the agent needing to open a schema.

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 states a useful boundary ('Does not generate or publish'), which tells the agent this is not a generation step, but it never names the alternative tools (e.g. prepare_/generate_/resume_ variants) or the conditions that would select them. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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