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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing two things they cannot express: the change applies to every account the automation runs on, and partial failures are surfaced by name in a 'failed' field. This is exactly the multi-account scope and partial-success behavior an agent needs before calling a cross-account mutation.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect scope, with no filler. The trailing note about 'failed' is slightly terse and reads like a fragment, but it still carries useful 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?

For a single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the blast radius, the reversibility path, and the partial-failure signal. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents automation_id and even points to sprkly_list_automations as its source. The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (stop/pause) and resource (an automation) plus the effect scope ('from replying, on every account it runs on'), which no sibling duplicates. An agent can distinguish it from sprkly_delete_scheduled_post or sprkly_resume_automation without opening any schema.

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?

Names the counterpart tool explicitly ('sprkly_resume_automation turns it back on') and clarifies the non-destructive intent ('Nothing is deleted'), which gives clear context for choosing pause over deletion. It stops short of stating the conditions under which pausing is preferable, so it is strong context rather than a full when/when-not rule.

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