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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool can toggle active state and change triggers, but it does not itself warn that updating actions wholesale replaces existing ones — that disclosure lives only in the schema parameter text — nor does it mention permissions or side effects on in-flight runs.

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 short sentences: the first front-loads domain and capability, the second handles disambiguation. No redundant restatement of parameters and 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?

With five parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations carrying safety hints, the description supplies what an agent needs to pick and call the tool. The only shortfall is that action-replacement destructiveness is only surfaced via the schema rather than the description, which matters for a destructive mutation.

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 baseline is 3; every parameter including the is_active enum and the destructive action-replacement semantics is already documented in the schema. The description's field list (name, trigger, actions, active) mirrors the schema without adding format or constraint detail beyond it.

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 ('Atualiza') and resource ('fluxo de automação') and enumerates the mutating operations: rename, trigger change, action modification, activate/deactivate. It also tags the domain ('event-triggered') and explicitly separates it from sequence tools, so an agent can distinguish it from update_sequence/update_process without opening schemas.

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 an explicit exclusion: for prospecting cadences use the sequences tools. It also notes where automation_id comes from (list_automations). It does not distinguish update_automation from create_automation or get_automation, but the routing context for the main confusable sibling (sequences) is clear.

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