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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by explaining that the operation only creates a draft and does not immediately complete the automation. It also conveys the follow-up workflow involving put_automation. The annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, so the description does not need to restate those.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the alternative workflow is stated in one clear sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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 description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly, including the template source and what to do when no template fits. The absence of an output schema means return details are not specified, but for a draft-creation step this is a minor gap given the clear workflow.

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?

The schema already covers most parameters, and the description meaningfully connects templateId and params to list_automation_templates, telling the agent where the values come from. This adds semantic guidance beyond the bare property descriptions, especially for the nested params object.

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 states a specific verb ('Create'), a specific resource ('an automation'), and the source ('any template in list_automation_templates'). It also clarifies the immediate outcome ('Creates a draft'), making it easy to distinguish from related tools like put_automation or enable_automation.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: when creating from a template. It also names the alternative for uncovered cases: 'build the document yourself and call put_automation on the draft.' This gives a clear either/or routing decision with no reliance on inference.

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