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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a concrete consequence beyond them: the reviewed sample is invalidated, and it scopes behavior by stating it neither generates nor publishes. That is meaningful extra context.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary action leads and the constraints follow. Efficient, though the final clause is slightly clipped and could be tighter.

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 presence of an output schema removes the need to document return values, and annotations cover safety. But for a destructive mutation with 5 required undocumented parameters and a complex nested recipe, leaving revision and idempotencyKey semantics unexplained is a real gap.

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, revision, and idempotencyKey. The description only alludes to 'recipe' being replaced and says nothing about automationId, brandId, revision semantics, or idempotencyKey purpose, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Replace this automation's recipe') plus a second effect ('invalidate its reviewed sample'). The clause 'the saved automation type must match this tool' differentiates it from the many sibling update_*_automation tools, though it does not name any sibling directly.

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 when to use it via the constraints 'Only written reel concepts' and 'the saved automation type must match', and 'Does not generate or publish' hints that generation belongs to generate_reel_concepts_automation_sample. However no alternative tool is named and no explicit when/when-not routing is given.

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