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 partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: replacing the recipe 'invalidat[es] its reviewed sample' (destroys prior approval state) and that the operation neither generates nor publishes, which is non-obvious for an update call.

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 its side effect, then scope and precondition. No filler; every clause 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the invalidation/scope behavior is covered. But for a 5-required-param, deeply nested mutation with 0% schema description coverage, the omission of revision and idempotencyKey semantics leaves 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 params including nested objects, so the description carries the burden and does not meet it. It references 'recipe' and loosely covers automationId via the type-match precondition, but never explains revision (concurrency token), idempotencyKey, or brandId semantics.

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 invalidate its reviewed sample.' The clause 'Only social post artwork; the saved automation type must match this tool' differentiates it from the many sibling update_*_automation tools that target other 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 exclusion ('Does not generate or publish') and a precondition ('the saved automation type must match this tool'), which tells the agent when this tool applies. It does not, however, name the alternative tools (e.g. generate_social_post_creator_automation_sample) for regenerating a sample after invalidation.

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