novacrm_update_automation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys partial-update semantics but says nothing about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, side effects on active rules, or the response shape for a mutation tool.

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 tight sentence with no waste, and the partial-update instruction is placed inline where it is immediately useful. Appropriately sized, though there is little content to structure.

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?

With 7 parameters, a nested actionConfig object, no output schema, and only 29% schema coverage, the description is too thin. An agent lacks guidance on enum values, the payload shape of actionConfig, and the mutation's behavioral constraints.

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 low at 29%, so the description should compensate but only adds the partial-update rule. It does not explain the trigger/actionType enums or the nested actionConfig object, leaving most parameters undocumented in either place.

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 and resource ('Atualiza uma regra de automação existente'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the create/list/get/delete automation siblings in name and verb. It does not explicitly name those siblings, keeping it just below a 5.

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 parenthetical 'envie apenas os campos a alterar' gives useful partial-update guidance, implying when to use it over a full replace. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or how it differs from novacrm_create_automation or novacrm_delete_automation.

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