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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable detail: messages begin going to real people, confirmation is required, enabling is refused under certain conditions, and webhook subscription is warned about. This goes well 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?

Every sentence earns its place. The most important warning is front-loaded, and the failure modes are packed into three tight sentences without fluff.

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 definition covers the key behavioral constraints, safety implications, and refusal modes an agent needs to act responsibly. It is slightly incomplete because it never specifies what the required 'id' parameter represents, but the overall picture is solid for a simple two-parameter 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 only 50%, with the required 'id' parameter completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description adds no parameter meaning; the agent must infer that 'id' refers to an automation ID.

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 action, 'Turn an automation live,' and clarifies its real-world effect: 'This is the moment messages start going to real people.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_automation and disable_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?

It gives clear contextual guidance: confirm with the person first, and explains the one-automation-per-account constraint and the error cases next_post_taken, reconsent_required, and webhook warnings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use, but the context is strong.

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