activate_automation

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: default approval-gating, email notification to account owner, approval required, immediate activation if false, handling of stranded runs, returned fields (status, pendingApproval), and prerequisites (paid plan, verified fromEmail domains) leading to error 403. No contradictions.

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 three sentences with no wasted words, but it could be slightly more concise by separating prerequisites. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately mentions the return value (automation with status and pendingApproval) and error conditions. It covers all necessary context for safe usage.

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?

Both parameters (id, sender) are described in the input schema with simple descriptions. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, which has 100% coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Turn a draft or paused automation live.' It specifies the verb 'activate' and the resource 'automation', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'pause_automation', 'create_automation', etc.

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?

The description explains when to use this tool (to activate an automation) and provides critical context about the default approval-gated behavior and immediate activation when approvalRequired is false. It references campaign approval for analogy but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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