smartsuite_update_automation

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

Annotations only set readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden. It details the fetch-then-apply pattern, the wholesale replacement of trigger/actions, the preservation of unprovided fields, and the engine-computed enabled state. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long but well-structured: purpose first, then requirements, then behavior, then warnings. Every sentence is justified given the complexity and potential for destructive updates. A minor trim could be made, but the length is warranted for safety.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the outcome (disabled status if invalid) and mentions statusReason. It covers prerequisites, parameter interactions, and common pitfalls. For a tool with 9 parameters and nested objects, this is thorough and complete.

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%, but the description adds crucial meaning: explains the fetch-and-apply behavior, mutual exclusivity of actions/actionGroups, the role of credentialId, and the replacement semantics for trigger and actions. This goes well beyond the schema 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 'Update an existing automation.' This is a specific verb+resource, clearly distinguishing from create, delete, or describe siblings. It immediately identifies the tool's core action.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisites (readwrite/admin mode, environment variable), explains how to use parameters to avoid overwriting (OMIT trigger/actions to preserve them), warns against using describe_automation_step output, and clarifies the enabled state behavior. Provides comprehensive when-to and when-not-to guidance.

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