Switch an automation on or off

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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds the consequence the annotations can't express: turning it on makes the automation start answering people by itself immediately, an outward-facing effect. It also adds an auth requirement (Publish scope) and a human-confirmation norm. It stops short of saying what happens to conversations already in flight or what the call returns.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then prerequisites and sibling routing in three short sentences with no filler. The closing "editing is done in the app" is slightly ambiguous in phrasing (editing of what, by whom) but still earns its place as a routing hint.

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 with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the essential missing pieces: real-world side effect, auth scope, and human-approval expectation. Only the response shape is unaddressed, which is minor absent an output schema.

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 both parameters are already documented, including "true switches it on, false pauses it." The description's phrasing echoes that boolean semantics with a little added meaning ("starts answering people by itself right away") but supplies no extra constraints on automationId beyond what the pattern and description already give.

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 specific verb and resource ("Switches one DM automation on or off") and the word "DM" disambiguates it from the email-automation siblings. An agent can identify the exact operation without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear context: confirm with the person first, a Publish-scope key is required, creation belongs to postfjord_create_automation, and editing happens in the app rather than through a tool. What's missing is an explicit exclusion of the near-identical email-automation path (postfjord_set_email_automation), which an agent could plausibly confuse with this one.

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