Trigger automation

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

Annotations only flag readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — that writes must be enabled and that conditions are skipped by default unless skip_condition=false. It still doesn't say what the invocation returns, whether it blocks until actions finish, or what happens on a currently-running automation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then identifier options, then the flag, then the prerequisite. Nothing is padded and no sentence is redundant.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the naming options, the condition flag, and the writes prerequisite — enough to invoke correctly. Missing only peripheral detail such as whether the call is synchronous or what a failure looks like.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the entity_id/unique-id duality and the default-true skip_condition. The description restates the skip_condition behavior in practical terms but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint detail; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Manually run an automation's actions now') and anchors it to the underlying HA service call (automation.trigger), so the agent knows exactly what happens. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings like ha_reload_automations or ha_set_automation, which a 5 would require.

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?

Gives concrete guidance: how to identify the automation (entity_id or unique id), how to change the condition behavior (skip_condition=false), and a hard prerequisite (writes enabled). No 'when not to use' or explicit pointer to an alternative tool, so it falls 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.