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

Annotations mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it explains the real-world effect ('messages start going to real people'), specific error codes and their causes, and uniqueness constraints. Far exceeds what annotations provide.

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?

Front-loaded with key effect in bold, then detailed constraints. Somewhat verbose but well-structured; every sentence provides actionable information. Slightly dense but not wasteful.

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?

Comprehensive for a mutation tool: covers safety, real-world impact, error conditions, and constraints. No output schema needed as errors are explained. Missing nothing critical for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 50%: the id parameter is undocumented in the schema, but the description implies it identifies the automation. workspaceId is described in the schema. Description adds no extra parameter detail, but given the schema coverage, baseline 3 is exceeded by context. Not quite 5 due to lack of parameter-specific hints beyond implicit 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Turn an automation live' with precise semantics, distinguishing it from disable_automation and from create_automation/update_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?

Explicitly warns to confirm with the person first, and enumerates the exact conditions under which enabling a second automation is refused (next_post_taken, automation_catch_all_taken, reconsent_required, feature_in_review). Provides clear context for when to use and when it will fail.

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