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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the real-world consequence of the write: turning on sends nothing immediately but thereafter emails the site's real customers on every trigger (bookings, leads, paid orders), and turning off halts sends. It also prescribes surfacing that consequence to the user, which no annotation (readOnly/destructive/idempotent/openWorld) conveys.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the key source, then the side effect, then the alternative — a logical order with no filler sentences. It is dense (a single long paragraph with an em-dash aside), but every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 mutating, open-world tool with a fully described 4-parameter schema, no output schema, and complete annotations, the description covers the operation, input sourcing, side effects, and the sibling alternative. Minor gaps remain (e.g., permission requirements, what state is reported back), but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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%, so the enum and boolean semantics are already documented; the description adds value by pointing to get_automation_overview as the authoritative source of the automation keys and by framing 'enabled' as a persistent switch rather than a one-shot action. It stops short of per-key behavior details, but the schema carries the rest.

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 ('Switch one built-in automation on or off') and narrows scope to built-in automations, explicitly routing custom multi-step sequences to draft_journey. An agent can distinguish it from set_journey_enabled and configure_automation without opening a 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 the prerequisite for valid input ('keys from get_automation_overview'), names the alternative for a different need (draft_journey for custom sequences), and adds a usage rule about informing the user before requesting approval. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both explicit.

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