re_enable_automation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the trigger (manual parameter changes) and the scope ('re-enables all overridden automation'), which is an important behavioral detail. It does not mention reversibility or potential side effects, but for a simple tool with zero parameters, this is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences long, with the main action front-loaded and the explanation kept short. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 simple tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: the cause of overridden automation and the tool's global effect. It lacks a few details such as whether it affects all tracks or is limited to the current arrangement, but the phrase 'all overridden automation' largely covers this. The description is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema offers no semantics. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds value by outlining the tool's effect. Given the 0-parameter baseline of 4, this score is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Re-enable automation that was overridden by manual parameter changes.' It uses a specific verb (re-enable) and identifies the target resource (overridden automation), distinguishing it from related tools like trigger_back_to_arrangement by explaining the exact scenario.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'When you manually adjust an automated parameter, the automation is overridden.' It implies this is the intended use case. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, 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.