qui_update_automation

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

The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the HTTP method (PUT) and how to structure arguments (path, query, body), which is valuable given no annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or required permissions, leaving transparency incomplete.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences convey the endpoint and the exact argument structure. No redundant or extraneous text.

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?

The description provides complete invocation details for the single arguments parameter, and an output schema exists to cover return values. However, it lacks an explicit business-purpose statement and usage context, which is notable given no annotations and similar sibling tools for create/delete operations.

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 a generic 'arguments' object with no defined properties (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that path variables go directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and the request body in arguments.body—making the parameter usage unambiguous and complete.

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 specific PUT endpoint for automations, making it clear the tool updates an automation. However, it does not explicitly state 'updates an automation' or contrast with create/delete, relying on the endpoint and name for clarity.

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 creating or deleting automations. It only explains how to format the request, missing usage context such as prerequisites or alternatives.

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