Create an automation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/safety profile is covered; the description goes beyond that by disclosing that creating reserves allowance and that nothing is published until publish_automation runs. That reservation side effect is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior worth surfacing, though it doesn't say whether the reservation is reversible or how to release it.

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?

Three tight sentences, zero padding, and the most decision-relevant fact (it plans, it does not publish) is front-loaded. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 nine-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers sequencing, side effects, and the dependency on whoami. The gap is that it never indicates what comes back (e.g. an automation identifier) even though the very next step, publish_automation, presumably needs it — a notable omission for an output-schema-less chained tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters, including the postTimes constraint against automationSlotsPerDay. The description only echoes that constraint and adds the whoami lookup pointer, adding little meaning beyond the structured fields — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Plan a run of posts across a date range... creates the plan'), and immediately scopes what the tool does not do by naming the sibling that completes the action ('does not publish anything until publish_automation is called on it'). An agent can distinguish create_automation from publish_automation, update_automation, and schedule_rush_lineup 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?

It supplies real preconditions: read automationSlotsPerDay from whoami before choosing postTimes, and the create-then-publish sequence is spelled out. It stops short of enumerating the other alternatives (update_automation, schedule_rush_lineup, list_automations) or saying when an existing automation should be updated instead of a new one created.

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