addPersonToAutomation

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral details but does not. It gives no information about side effects, idempotency, or requirements (e.g., whether the person/automation must exist). The description is essentially a bare statement of intent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It clearly communicates the core purpose and earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple but lacks critical context. Without annotations or output schema, the description should clarify expected behavior (e.g., what happens if the person is already in the automation, or whether it creates a new relationship). The minimal text leaves gaps for the agent.

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% (both personId and automationId have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the parameter names and IDs, but it also does not need to since the schema is sufficient.

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 'Add a person to an automation' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like addPersonToActionPlan and updateAutomationPerson. It directly states the operation without ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The description only restates the action, leaving the agent without context on when this tool is appropriate.

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