Trigger an automation now

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false), and the description adds a genuinely non-obvious trait: it calls automation.trigger with skip_condition=true, so conditions that normally block the automation are bypassed. That warning is valuable beyond annotations; the only gap is not saying whether this can be reverted or what side effects are possible.

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-loaded with the core behavior, then a short 'Use when' and 'Returns' block — efficient and scannable. The Returns line is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is brief.

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 one-parameter action with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger semantics, and usage context well. It omits only minor details such as whether conditions can be honored and what side effects the fired actions may cause.

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% and there is a single required entity_id, so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description restates that entity_id is the target but adds no format or selection guidance beyond the schema's example.

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 and resource ('Run an automation's actions now, skipping its normal trigger') and contrasts with the normal trigger path, which cleanly separates it from siblings like automations_run_script or automations_activate_scene.

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?

Provides an explicit 'Use when: testing or forcing an automation's actions on demand,' which gives clear invocation context. It does not name a specific alternative tool or state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. running a script), so it stops short of a 5.

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