novacrm_create_automation

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it omits material behavior: a rule with isActive defaulting to true can immediately fire actions such as send_telegram or create_task, which are real external side effects. It says nothing about permissions, whether the rule activates immediately, or idempotency — significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then explains the mechanism with two parenthetical examples. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

Six parameters, a nested object, two enums, and no annotations or output schema mean the description should do more; it explains the concept well but leaves activation defaults, side effects, and required actionConfig shape incompletely addressed for a 6-param tool.

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 enum values and the nested actionConfig fields (taskTitle, taskType, delayDays) are already documented. The description adds a mild illustration by pairing a trigger example with an action example, but it does not explain the required coupling between trigger, actionType, and actionConfig beyond what the schema states.

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 specific verb+resource ('Cria uma regra de automação') and explains the trigger→action model with concrete examples, which makes the tool's role unmistakable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with novacrm_update_automation or novacrm_list_automation, but the 'create' verb plus sibling naming pattern makes the distinction inferable.

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?

Usage is implied through the worked example (trigger order_paid → create_task), so an agent can infer how to invoke it. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over novacrm_update_automation or when creating a rule is appropriate versus a one-off task/webhook, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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