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

Annotations already declare this as a mutating, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, so the bar is lowered. The description still adds real value beyond them by disclosing PATCH semantics — only passed fields change — so an agent knows an omitted field is preserved rather than cleared. It stops short of describing auth requirements or what is returned.

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: identity first, then the pause/resume behavior, then the partial-update rule. No filler and nothing duplicated; each sentence carries a distinct decision-relevant fact.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with a safety-covering annotation set and no output schema, the description supplies the two facts an agent most needs: what the pause switch does and that unspecified fields are left alone. It does not explain whether the automation state must be re-fetched after update, which is a minor residual 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 coverage is 67% and several fields (keywords replacement, buttons removal, clickTag clearing, followersOnly constraint) are documented only in the schema, so the description needn't repeat them. The one clarification it gives for isActive largely restates the schema's own 'false pauses the automation, true resumes it', adding only the interaction with partial update, so it does little beyond the baseline.

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 ('Update a comment→DM automation') plus the special pause/resume mode, which is enough to separate it from create_comment_automation, delete_comment_automation and list_comment_automations. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the verb rather than stated.

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 clear guidance for the most common alternate use case: sending isActive:false alone pauses without touching other fields, and isActive:true resumes. It does not discuss when to prefer a full field update over pause/resume, nor point to create/delete siblings, but the practical usage context is present.

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