Run an automation now

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds real value by disclosing the dryRun behavior—that a real run 'touches things outside Termix' while dryRun only records—and the owner-identity execution context. This goes beyond what annotations convey, though it stops short of detailing side-effect scope or reversibility.

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 primary purpose. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, execution context, and the critical dryRun caveat. No redundancy or 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?

For a 2-param side-effecting tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, owner execution context, and dryRun safety valve. Gaps remain: the id parameter's meaning and what success/failure responses look like, though the latter is mitigated by the absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It explains dryRun well ('record what each step would do without touching anything outside Termix'), but the required id parameter is left completely unexplained—an agent must infer it is the automation identifier from the tool name.

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 clear verb+resource (run an automation) with a specific execution context ('Runs immediately, as the automation's owner'). It implicitly distinguishes from the trigger_automation_external_system sibling by noting owner-context execution, but doesn't name the sibling or make the differentiation explicit.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusionary language. The 'Runs immediately' phrasing hints at an on-demand use case versus scheduling or external triggering, but the description never names an alternative or states when to prefer this over termix_automations_trigger_automation_external_system or list/step tools.

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