Enable a disabled automation

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds the underlying `automation.turn_on` service call and the raw response shape, which clarifies the mutation mechanics. It does not cover auth needs or further side effects, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Four short, front-loaded lines cover purpose, mechanism, exclusion, and return. The return line is slightly redundant because an output schema exists, but the overall structure remains efficient and easy to scan.

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 enable tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description supplies purpose, alternative routing, and mechanism. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100% and the single `entity_id` parameter is already documented with an example. The description only restates 'with entity_id' and adds no new parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Enable') and resource ('disabled automation'), and explicitly names the sibling automations_trigger_automation as the not-for case. An agent can distinguish it from related tools without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says when not to use it ('running the automation's actions immediately') and names the alternative (automations_trigger_automation). The intended enable use case is clear from the first line.

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