Disable an automation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds important non-obvious behavior: it calls the automation.turn_off service, changes only runtime state, and leaves stored config untouched, which reconciles the non-read-only but non-destructive annotation pair. It stops short of mentioning permissions or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core action and consequence, then adds only the two details an agent needs: that it wraps automation.turn_off and that stored config is untouched. The return-value line is short and earned, with no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter automation toggle, the description covers what the tool does, how it does it (turn_off service), what changes (runtime state), what does not change (stored config), and what it returns. An output schema already exists, so return details are not required, but the extra note is harmless and complete.

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 100%: the entity_id parameter is fully documented with its expected format and example. The description only restates that entity_id is passed to the service call, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Disable an automation') and adds the effect ('stops reacting to its triggers'), making the purpose unmistakable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling automations_enable_automation, but the action is self-evidently distinct from trigger/list/enable operations.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'disable' and the consequence of stopping trigger reactions, but the description never explicitly states when to choose this over automations_enable_automation, automations_trigger_automation, or automations_set_automation_config. It gives useful context (runtime state only, config untouched) that indirectly guides selection but falls short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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