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

With annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true, the description explains what actually gets destroyed: steps is a full replacement of the whole list, and dropping step ids of unchanged steps breaks people currently in the flow. That in-flight-run consequence is exactly the kind of context the annotation hints cannot 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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and mutation semantics, then the id-source and the step-id caveat. Nothing is filler given the 8-parameter nested schema this sits above.

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 an 8-parameter, nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, partial-update behavior, and the riskiest nested field. It is only slightly short in not hinting at what the call returns or any permission constraints.

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 100%, so the 3 baseline applies, but the description still adds operational meaning beyond the schema: automationId is sourced from list_dm_automations, steps must reuse existing ids, and unspecified fields are left untouched. It does not add syntax detail for active/reentry beyond the schema, hence 4.

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 (Change) and resource (DM automation) and enumerates the mutable fields (name, trigger, steps, reentry, active), which makes it clearly distinct from create_dm_automation and delete_dm_automation. It only references list_dm_automations as an id source rather than explicitly contrasting the siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

"Get the id from list_dm_automations" and "the whole list, as returned by list_dm_automations" give a concrete prerequisite workflow that presupposes a prior list call, and "Only the fields given change" frames this as a partial update. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or exclusion vs create_dm_automation, so it stops short of 5.

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