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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Enable or disable') without revealing any side effects, permissions required, idempotency, or consequences of toggling. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, concise sentence with no fluff, front-loading the action. It is efficiently written, though the extreme brevity sacrifices content—yet for this dimension, it earns credit for being tight and directly stating the core purpose.

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 simple mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the effect of toggling, what the response will be, or any side effects. An agent has enough to call the tool but lacks critical context about behavior and results, making it incomplete.

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 0% and the description does not mention any parameters. The schema defines automation_id and enabled, but the description adds no meaning to them, leaving the agent to guess their roles or format. With two required parameters and zero description, this is a severe deficiency.

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 uses a specific verb ('Enable or disable') and resource ('an automation'), making the action clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_automation and list_automations by implying a state change, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_automation or list_automations. The description implies usage when you want to change state, but it does not state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer.

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