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 non-obvious consequences: the reviewed sample is invalidated by this call, and the tool only operates on an automation whose saved type is retouch. That is real context beyond the annotations, though permission requirements and the revision/conflict behavior are unstated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and effect, with the exclusions immediately after. No filler.

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 output schema covers return values, so that omission is fine, but for a destructive, revision-guarded mutation over a complex nested recipe the description says nothing about how 'revision' or 'idempotencyKey' should be used or what a revision mismatch does. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 with ~20 fields, and the description adds no meaning for any of them. Aside from noting that 'recipe' is replaced wholesale, it does not compensate for the schema 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 and resource (replace the automation's recipe) plus the concrete side effect (invalidate its reviewed sample), and explicitly scopes out generation/publishing. The clause 'the saved automation type must match this tool' implicitly distinguishes it from the other update_*_automation siblings for different automation types.

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?

Gives a clear when-not ('Does not generate or publish') and a precondition (the saved automation type must match), which routes the agent away from generate_retouch_automation_sample / activate_retouch_automation. It stops short of naming those alternative tools explicitly.

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