update_automation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral constraints (disabled state requirement, step requirement for enabling) and implies PATCH semantics. It could mention permissions or side effects, but the main gotchas are covered.

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 with no fluff: the first states the operation and scope, the second lists the critical constraints. Information is front-loaded and every word 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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential preconditions and operation. It doesn't describe the return value or authorization requirements, but the schema handles parameter details, leaving only minor 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?

Schema coverage is 60%, leaving name and status undocumented (though status has an enum). The description adds meaning by linking domain and connection edits to the disabled state and status changes to the step prerequisite, providing context the schema alone does not.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') with a resource ('automation') and enumerates the exact updatable fields (name, status, domain, connection graph), plus the HTTP method and path. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_automation_step and stop_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?

It provides explicit conditions: enabling requires at least one step, and editing connections or the domain requires the automation to be disabled. It doesn't name alternative tools, but these prerequisites give clear context for when the operation is valid.

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