automations_set_automation_config

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

Discloses mutation ('Create or overwrite') and the side effect 'Auto-reloads automations', indicating immediate effect. However, without annotations, it lacks details on authorization, what happens to existing settings on overwrite, or error conditions. More transparency would be beneficial.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences that front-load the verb and resource. Every part adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested config object, mutation side effects, output schema), the description is too brief. It omits parameter format details, prerequisites (e.g., automation must exist?), and behavioral guarantees. Sibling context suggests reading before writing, but this is not mentioned.

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?

The description adds meaning to 'config' by listing example fields (alias, trigger, etc.), partially compensating for the 0% schema coverage. However, it does not describe 'automation_id' and the term 'YAML config' may conflict with the schema type 'object', potentially confusing agents about the expected format.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create or overwrite' and the resource 'automation YAML config', and lists typical fields like alias, trigger, action, condition. This specificity, combined with the auto-reload note, distinguishes it from sibling tools like automations_get_automation_config or automations_delete_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?

Implies that this tool is for setting or updating automation configuration, but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., reading before writing, enabling after configuration). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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