automations_set_automation_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the config is created/overwritten and auto-reloads automations, but does not mention potential side effects like overwrite being irreversible, validation behavior, or error handling. Basic transparency is provided but limited.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose, uses clear verbs, and includes all key points without extraneous information. Every part is functional and concise.

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 presence of an output schema (not detailed) and sibling tools covering related operations, the description adequately covers the core action and auto-reload behavior. It could mention more about overwrite implications or config validation, but remains sufficient for basic usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions that the config object includes 'alias, trigger, action, condition' which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not detail the structure or required fields, leaving ambiguity for the 'automation_id' parameter. Partial compensation.

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 tool creates or overwrites an automation YAML config, listing typical keys (alias, trigger, action, condition). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like automations_get_automation_config (read) and automations_delete_automation (delete). The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description implies the tool is for setting automation configs but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like automations_set_script_config or provide guidelines on when not to use it. The context of sibling tools suggests it's for automations, but guidance is missing.

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