Update an automation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely non-obvious trait beyond that: updates do not retroactively affect already-published items. It still doesn't clarify partial-update semantics (only automationId is required, implying a patch-style merge), which would be the natural next disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the mutation scope front-loaded and the caveat second. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what can be changed and one important side effect. It omits what an agent would still want: whether unspecified fields are preserved, how removing an account or a post time is expressed, and whether changed schedules re-trigger anything. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 seven parameters including formats (YYYY-MM-DD, HH:MM) and the workspaceId default. The description only restates the field groups generically ('name, schedule or target accounts') and adds no syntax or constraint detail, so the baseline of 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 ('Change') and resource ('an automation') and enumerates the editable surface: name, schedule, target accounts. An agent can distinguish it from create_automation, publish_automation, delete_automation and get_automation. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to pick this tool over publish_automation, create_automation or delete_automation, and no prerequisites or preconditions are given. The only conditional content ('Items already published are not affected') is a behavioral fact, not usage routing.

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