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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what annotations already provide (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or what happens if the resource exists or not. The annotations carry the minimal burden, but the description does not augment them.

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 extremely concise (one phrase) but at the cost of clarity and completeness. It is under-specified and does not add value. Proper conciseness should retain essential 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?

The description is completely inadequate for a PUT operation with 6 parameters, no output schema, and complex context. It does not explain the return value, side effects, or any post-conditions. The description is essentially 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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the parameter semantics are partially documented in the schema. However, the description does not add any meaning to the parameters. For instance, 'idempotency_key' and 'id' have no description in the schema or the description. The description fails to clarify the purpose of these parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 is merely the HTTP method and path 'PUT /content-automations/{id}', which is a tautology of the tool name. It does not explain what the tool does (e.g., update a content automation). The verb 'Put' is implied but no resource action is described.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like aidelly_post_content_automations, aidelly_get_content_automations_id, or aidelly_delete_content_automations_id. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or alternatives.

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