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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds a crucial side-effect not covered by annotations: contacts who already received the automation are not messaged again, even with a new template. It does not cover permissions or rate limits.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the most important behavioral caveat at the end. No filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema but rich annotations, the description covers the update scope, partial-update instruction, and a key side effect. It leaves minor gaps around the required automation_id and error behavior, but those are covered by the schema.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps enabled to pause/resume and identifies template, trigger tag, delay, and name, but it does not explain automation_id or provide delay units/format beyond the schema's min/max.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Change' on the resource 'automation' and enumerates the mutable fields (enabled, template, trigger tag, delay, name). It is immediately distinguishable from create_automation, delete_automation, and list_automations without needing to open the 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?

It gives a concrete usage rule: 'Pass only the fields to change,' which tells the agent this is a partial update. It implies when to use it (to modify an existing automation), but does not explicitly name create/delete alternatives or state when not to use it.

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