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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description restating idempotency adds little. However, 'never triggers an immediate batch' and 'schedule its next normal frequency-aware occurrence' are genuine side-effect disclosures the annotations do not convey.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler, and the two most decision-relevant facts (no immediate batch, idempotent) are front-loaded after the purpose.

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 6-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the behavioral shape but says nothing about what is returned, what happens if the automation is not paused or not owned, or how conversation_id/preferences affect the call. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 83%, so the schema already documents uid, bearer_token, conversation_id, and preferences_mode. The description mentions no parameter at all; baseline 3 applies where structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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 ('Resume an owned paused automation') plus the resulting scheduling behavior, which makes it clearly distinct from create_* and update_* siblings. It stops short of naming the alternative it is contrasted with (run_automation_now), but the implied contrast is legible.

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?

'Resume an owned paused automation' plus 'never triggers an immediate batch' effectively tells an agent when this applies and rules out the immediate-execution case. The alternative to use in that case (run_automation_now) is not named explicitly.

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