run_automation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the triggering action, the scoping behavior, and cautions about bypassing worker/staged-file limits. However, it does not disclose side effects of running an automation, whether execution is queued or asynchronous, or what kind of response or failure behavior to expect.

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 tight sentences: the first states the action and endpoint, the second conveys scoping and bypass guidance. Every phrase earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 description is adequate for a tool with 8 parameters and 100% schema coverage, but it leaves gaps because there is no output schema and no annotations. It does not mention what happens after triggering, whether runs can be destructive, or how results are returned. These are notable for a tool that executes automations.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping the scoping intent to libraries/nodes and by explicitly warning that bypass flags should be used only deliberately to jump worker or staged-file limits. This goes beyond the individual property descriptions.

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 a clear verb-and-resource statement, 'Manually trigger an automation,' and reinforces it with the exact endpoint, 'POST /api/v2/run-automation.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like list_automations and get_automation, which query rather than execute.

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 gives actionable context: scope the run to libraries or nodes, and reserve bypass flags for deliberate limit-jumping. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the 'only when you deliberately want...' phrasing provides a clear exclusion for the bypass behavior.

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