Start a script

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context beyond them: fire-and-forget semantics, the underlying `script.turn_on` service call, and the crucial caveat that the script's `response_variable` is never surfaced. It stops short of covering failure modes or permission requirements.

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?

Front-loads the key behavioral fact in the first sentence and is generally efficient. There is mild redundancy across the three sentences ('return immediately', 'does not return the script's response variables', and the Returns line all circle the same non-blocking/non-returning idea).

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 two-parameter tool with a full output schema and annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: what it does, the async contract, and the missing-response caveat. Explaining the return value is slightly redundant given the output schema exists, but nothing essential is missing.

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%, so both `entity_id` and `variables` are already documented in the schema; the description's statement that variables are passed as the script's fields largely restates the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Start a script') and immediately qualifies the execution model ('return immediately without waiting for it to finish'), which is exactly what separates it from trigger/get-config siblings. An agent can distinguish it from automations_trigger_automation and automations_get_script_trace without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit negative case ('Not for: getting the script's result — this tool never returns it'), which is strong guidance. It does not, however, name the alternative tool the agent should use instead (e.g. a trace-listing tool), so the routing is implied rather than complete.

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