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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuine context that versions are produced by put/update operations, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or return shape.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and followed by the routing hint. No filler and every clause carries information.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers what it returns, how versions arise, and how to fetch one. Return format details are the only meaningful omission.

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%; workspaceId is well described in the schema, while id is undocumented in both places. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own (the 'version' it mentions belongs to get_automation), so it neither compensates for the gap nor obscures 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+resource ('saved versions of one automation') and adds the salient mechanism that each put_automation/update_automation creates a version. It references get_automation to distinguish reading a single version, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from list_automation_runs, the closest sibling.

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?

Routes the agent to get_automation plus a version argument when a single version is wanted, which is clear alternative guidance. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement relative to list_automations/list_automation_runs, but the context is unambiguous.

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