update_automation

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: partial update, state requirement, steps replacement, and topicId null usage. Could add more on field merge semantics but is substantial.

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 sentences, front-loaded with main action and crucial constraint. No redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers essential behavioral context for a complex tool (partial update with state machine, 7 params, nested objects). Lacks return value explanation (no output schema) but provides sufficient guidance for correct agent invocation.

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 low (43%). Description adds value for steps ('replaces the program wholesale') and topicId ('null to clear'), but other parameters (sender, approvalRequired, trigger, name) lack elaboration. Partially compensates.

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 verb 'Update' and resource 'automation', specifying partial update ('by id (partial)'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_automation, delete_automation, and activate_automation.

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?

Provides explicit condition: 'only while draft or paused (pause an active one first)'. This directly guides when to use the tool and implies the need to use pause_automation first, which is a sibling.

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