Approve and publish an automation

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the crucial irreversibility semantics — posts go out to real accounts on their planned times with no further confirmation. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent cannot infer from the structured fields. No contradiction: publishing to live accounts is not a destructive data mutation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the irreversible consequence, ending with the required procedural gate. The capitalized warning earns its emphasis given the stakes; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of what happens on success and does so (posts publish at planned times). It leaves open post-call behavior such as failure/partial-publish handling or whether repeat calls re-publish, which would matter for a point-of-no-return operation.

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% with only two params (workspaceId, automationId), both already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, default, or cross-parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 pair and resource: approve an automation's lineup and commit it to the publishing schedule. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutations like update_automation or 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?

Gives an explicit precondition and prerequisite: show the lineup from get_automation and get explicit user approval before calling. It names the sibling to use for the input step, though it does not contrast against other scheduling siblings (e.g. schedule_rush_lineup) or state when not to use it.

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