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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true but say nothing about merge semantics and versioning. The description adds substantial behavioral context: top-level fields replaced, objects merged one level deep with a concrete example (deliver.text keeps deliver.links), null removes a field, arrays replaced whole, stale version answers version_conflict, and live-flow edits take effect immediately. This is rich disclosure beyond the 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 dense but front-loaded with the core update semantics, then the versioning rule, then the failure-mode routing. It is one long paragraph; a break between the merge rules and the routing/steering sentences would improve scanability, but every sentence carries needed 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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: merge/replace semantics, null behavior, version precondition and conflict error, rename and enable behavior, the Instagram follow-check fields, the not_a_template routing to put_automation, and the immediate effect on live flows. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the id/version pairing (read first with get_automation and pass its version), the params merge semantics, and that name/enabled are also editable with the same checks as enable_automation. It does not restate the workspaceId rule, but that is already documented in the schema, so the description covers the documented gap well.

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 (edit) and resource (an automation with its template shape), and explicitly names the fields it can change (name, enabled, template params). It distinguishes itself from put_automation by stating the template-shape precondition, so an agent can tell which sibling to pick without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (an automation still having its template shape) and when-not (a canvas-edited flow has no template shape, use put_automation). It also tells the agent to read it first with get_automation and pass the version, and explains the version_conflict failure mode. Sibling routing is fully specified.

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