Change an existing automation by id. action=disable stops it firing (use this to turn off a misbehaving rule); action=enable resumes it; action=delete removes it. To read one, use relm_get_automation. To change a rule's trigger/conditions/actions, delete and recreate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| action | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the behavior of each action: disable stops firing, enable resumes, delete removes. It also notes the limitation that changing trigger/conditions/actions requires delete/recreate. Annotations already mark destructiveHint and readOnlyHint, but the description adds concrete behavioral context about what the actions do, going beyond the structured annotations.
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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: primary action, specific action semantics, and alternative guidance. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and there is no wasted phrasing.
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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, each action's meaning, alternative tools, and a key limitation. It gives the agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and avoid misuse. The guidance about delete/recreate also prevents the agent from attempting unsupported modifications.
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?
Despite the schema having 0% description coverage, the description fully explains parameter semantics. It maps each action enum value to its effect, and clarifies that 'id' refers to an existing automation. The description compensates entirely for the lack of schema-level parameter descriptions.
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's purpose: 'Change an existing automation by id.' It enumerates the three specific actions (enable, disable, delete) with their effects, distinguishing it from sibling tools like relm_get_automation (read) and relm_create_automation (create). The verb 'change' plus the resource 'automation' and the action list make the purpose unmistakable.
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 explicit usage guidance: 'To read one, use relm_get_automation' and 'To change a rule's trigger/conditions/actions, delete and recreate.' It also gives a specific scenario: 'use this to turn off a misbehaving rule.' This clearly tells when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct resource-action pair (e.g., create_automation, create_pipeline, create_template), and potential overlaps like batch vs create or log_activity vs create are clearly differentiated in descriptions. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
All 41 tools follow the relm_<verb>_<noun> pattern in snake_case, with conventional verbs like create, get, list, delete, manage, and restore. Minor plural/singular differences (list_automations vs get_automation) follow standard resource-naming practices and do not break consistency.
At 41 tools, the set is far beyond the 25+ threshold and feels heavy for an agent to navigate. While the CRM domain is broad, many tools could be consolidated (e.g., generic get/list by resource type) without losing clarity.
The tool set covers the full record lifecycle (CRUD, restore, batch, search) plus schema management, pipelines, stages, automations, sequences, templates, webhooks, channels, and usage. However, automations, sequences, and templates lack update operations—requiring delete-and-recreate workarounds—which is a minor but notable gap.
