disable_automation

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses that the trigger stops evaluating incoming calls but preserves its configuration and history. It also mentions re-enabling via PATCH. However, it does not address permissions, rate limits, or the effect on existing history. The disclosure is good but not exhaustive.

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 informative with two paragraphs: first explains behavior, second provides usage examples and distinction. It is not overly verbose, but could be slightly more concise by removing the PATCH instruction (external to the tool). Overall well-structured.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers behavior, usage context, and sibling differentiation. It does not mention error states or prerequisites, but for a pause operation this is adequate. Slightly more detail on the output would improve completeness.

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 implies a single parameter (trigger_id) by referencing 'the trigger' and the PATCH endpoint, but it does not explicitly describe the parameter or its expected format. Given 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate more; however, the purpose is clear enough that the parameter is likely the trigger ID.

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 pauses an automation trigger without deletion, preserving configuration and history. It distinguishes from sibling delete_automation (permanent) and implies relationship with activate_automation. The verb 'pause' and resource 'automation trigger' are 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?

Explicitly provides 'USE WHEN' with examples of temporary stoppage (e.g., planned maintenance) and distinguishes from permanent deletion. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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