qui_create_automation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions the HTTP method and argument structure; it does not disclose side effects, permissions, error behavior, or what the response represents, leaving an agent unaware of the operational implications.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundancy, front-loading the endpoint information. It is appropriately brief but could benefit from more explicit resource-specific details without becoming bloated.

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 the generic schema (0% coverage), no annotations, and the complexity of a create operation, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the endpoint does beyond the HTTP method, what path/body parameters are required, or any behavioral context, making it difficult for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 is an empty generic object, so the description adds value by explaining how to structure arguments: path variables directly, query values in arguments.params, and body in arguments.body. However, it fails to list specific parameters for this endpoint (e.g., instanceID, automation config), leaving significant ambiguity.

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 identifies the exact endpoint (POST /instances/{instanceID}/automations/) and the tool name indicates creation, distinguishing it from sibling automation tools (list/update/delete). However, the verb 'Call' is generic and does not explicitly state 'create a new automation.'

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like qui_update_automation or qui_delete_automation. It only gives a technical calling pattern, without context on prerequisites or preference over other tools.

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