Update an automation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'update'. It does not disclose whether omitted fields are reset, whether deletes can occur, or what the response contains.

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 short, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Every word merely echoes the title, so the brevity does not add value.

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 mutation with 7 parameters, a nested 'definition' object, no output schema, and an open-world hint, a three-word description is inadequate. It omits the recommended fetch-then-modify workflow, partial update semantics, and the need for an existing automation id.

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?

Only 2 of 7 parameters have schema descriptions, leaving most parameters undocumented, and the description does nothing to compensate. It adds no meaning about id, name, enabled, channels, definition, description, or concurrencyPolicy.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as fetching the existing automation first, whether the caller must own the automation, or when to use create_automation or run_automation_now instead.

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