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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: 'Effect: external-email' warns of external side effects, 'Retry after reading the current resource state' gives practical retry guidance, and permissions are listed. This goes beyond the basic annotations without contradicting them.

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 description is concise and front-loaded with the action. It uses compact phrases for effect, retry, permissions, and API reference, with no filler or repetition. Every sentence contributes functional guidance.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description covers core behavior, side effects, retry semantics, and permissions. It omits prerequisites like requiring the automation to exist, but that is standard and not a significant gap for a status-update tool.

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 100%, with both automation_id and body having descriptions. The description maps the action verbs to status enum values ('starts'='running', 'pauses'='paused', 'returns to draft'='draft'), which is mildly helpful but largely redundant given the schema's enum.

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 clearly states the tool starts, pauses, or returns an automation to draft, with the key qualifier 'without changing its definition.' This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like automations_update, which handles definition changes.

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?

The description provides clear context for use by noting it handles status changes only ('without changing its definition'), implying that automations_update is for definition changes. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the scope is well-defined enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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