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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that disabling preserves steps and runs, that re-enabling is possible, that enabling has a precondition ('goes on only when nothing is missing'), and that the response explains what is missing. It omits permission/auth requirements and any effect on in-flight runs, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

The core action is front-loaded and the following sentences add precondition and response context. The 'like the switch on emdly' aside is slightly decorative, but overall it is tight and mostly waste-free.

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 three-parameter toggle with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, the state-preservation behavior, the enable precondition, and the fact that the response reports missing pieces. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 schema already documents id, agent, and enabled semantics; the description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond a vague 'the answer says what is'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does 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 (switch on/off) and resource (an automation), and explicitly scopes it as a toggle that does not touch steps — which cleanly separates it from siblings like automation_save (edits steps) and automation_run (executes). An agent can identify the correct tool 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?

Gives clear context for use (flipping an automation's state without editing it) and a key precondition: it only turns on when nothing is missing. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives (e.g. automation_save) or stating when-not-to-use, so it lands at clear-context without exclusions.

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