create_automation

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does add useful specifics: POST /automations, domain-scoped triggering, and the inline steps/connections option. It stops short of stating permissions, idempotency, or the success response, so coverage is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler; the operation and endpoint are front-loaded and each subsequent sentence contributes a necessary behavioral constraint.

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 six-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers core mechanics well: trigger, domain scoping, and optional graph. It omits success-response behavior and does not point to step-building siblings, leaving moderate gaps.

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?

All six parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the conceptual term 'inline step graph' but no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already 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 names the exact operation ('Create an automation'), notes the event trigger, and gives the HTTP endpoint. It also adds a distinguishing constraint (one sending domain, only send_event calls with that domain trigger it), so it is easy to tell apart from update_automation or add_automation_step.

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?

It gives clear contextual guidance about domain ownership and trigger behavior, and mentions the optional inline graph. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to prefer add_automation_step or update_automation, so alternative routing is only implied.

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