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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description usefully spells out the concrete side effects (sending messages, creating tasks, running external-triggered actions), which is more meaningful than the hint alone. It still omits irreversibility, validation failure behavior, and whether contacts may be messaged without opt-in — meaningful gaps for a destructive, open-world tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence is short and earns its place by illustrating outcomes. No filler or repetition.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers what it does and the kinds of actions it can cause, but says nothing about results (e.g., an execution id), error conditions, or unexpected-messaging risk. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and each parameter (automation_id, contact_phone, contact_name, context) is documented in the schema. The description only implies that the automation is bound to a contact; it adds no format or interpolation guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Dispara um fluxo de automação') plus the target ('para um contato') and the manual trigger mode, which separates it from list_automations/get_automation. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the action is unambiguous.

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 second sentence gives example scenarios (follow-up messages, task creation, reacting to external events), which implies when to use it. However, it offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or pointers to alternatives like enroll_contacts or schedule_whatsapp_message, so selection guidance is only implied.

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