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 covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the reviewed sample is invalidated as a side effect, no generation or publishing occurs, and the automation type must already match. The exact meaning of "invalidate" remains unexplained.

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 core action and zero filler. The final constraint sentence is somewhat cryptic but does earn its place by flagging a precondition.

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 described, and annotations cover the destructive/idempotent profile. However, for a destructive mutation the unexplained revision and idempotencyKey semantics are a meaningful gap that the terse description does not close.

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, so the description carries the full explanatory burden and does not meet it. Aside from naming the recipe object, it says nothing about revision (optimistic concurrency), idempotencyKey, brandId or automationId, leaving the agent dependent on raw schema patterns.

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 this automation's recipe") plus a side effect ("invalidate its reviewed sample"). The closing clause ("the saved automation type must match this tool") implies it is scoped to smart-resize automations, loosely distinguishing it from the many update_* siblings, though it never names an alternative.

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?

The "Does not generate or publish" clause functions as a when-not boundary, which is useful. But there is no explicit routing among the surrounding sibling set (prepare_/generate_/activate_/resume_/pause_smart_resize_automation); the agent must infer when a full recipe replacement is wanted.

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