smartsuite_validate_automation

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the validation logic ('resolves the trigger's current outputs and flags every action-input reference to a missing trigger output'), the exact return fields with semantics, and the fallback behavior using GetAutomation. This is far richer behavioral context than annotations alone provide.

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 dense yet well-organized: it leads with the core purpose, then explains the main error, the reproduced UI check, return values, read-only nature, and fallback behavior. Every sentence contributes essential information without repetition.

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 no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating userEnabled, status, valid, and errors[] with meaningful explanations. It also covers an important edge case (works when listing automations fails), making the tool safely callable and interpretable by an agent.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, though it does give useful surrounding context about solutions and automations.

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 names a specific verb ('Check'), a clear resource (an automation), and the exact kind of errors it detects, including the 'Trigger output with id <id> not found' case. This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling automation tools like describe, list, update, or delete.

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 clearly explains when to use the tool: to check an automation for errors shown inline in the SmartSuite automation list, and it notes that it works even when listing automations fails. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use them, so it falls just short of a 5.

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