toggle_automation

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

The annotations already mark idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: activating starts enrolling contacts and sends real emails without further confirmation, paused contacts are held rather than dropped, and the operation is safe to repeat. No contradiction with annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action. Each subsequent sentence adds high-value information: read the workflow first, activation sends real emails, pausing holds contacts, safe to repeat, and API key required. No filler or redundant content.

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 two-parameter toggle tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite read, real-world consequences, idempotency, authentication, and the non-destructive nature of pausing. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the active parameter semantics in prose ('ACTIVATING starts enrolling contacts... Pausing stops new enrolments') but does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with 'Activate or pause one automation workflow,' a specific verb+resource pair that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from the sibling toggle_integration by explicitly naming the automation workflow resource.

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 clear usage context, including the explicit prerequisite 'Read the workflow with get_automation first so you know what activating will actually send.' It also contrasts pausing with cancellation ('pausing is not a cancellation'), but it does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool versus other alternatives.

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