trigger_automation

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: the trigger and condition logic is bypassed, so the action fires unconditionally. It omits other relevant traits such as permissions required, side effects, whether execution is async, and 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the accepted input formats. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 single-param action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior (bypasses triggers/conditions), and parameter format. The main missing piece is any indication of the result or confirmation returned to the caller.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it specifies that automation_id accepts either the slug ('my_auto') or the full entity_id ('automation.my_auto'). This resolves the ambiguity the bare schema leaves open, though format-bearing examples for edge cases are absent.

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+resource ('fire an automation's actions') and adds a distinguishing scope qualifier ('bypassing triggers + conditions') that separates it from siblings like get_automation and create_or_update_automation. An agent can identify exactly what this does 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?

The word 'manually' and 'bypassing triggers + conditions' imply this is for forcing execution outside normal trigger flow, which is useful context. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives are given, so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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