ha_trigger_automation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Dispara una automatización' only restates the tool's name and gives no information about side effects, required confirmation, failure behavior, or whether triggering is reversible.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it is largely tautological and underspecified. It does not front-load actionable details such as what automation is triggered or what confirmation is required.

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 an action tool with two required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, this description is far too incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Critical context about the confirm string and entity_id semantics is missing.

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% and the description does not compensate by explaining either parameter. 'entity_id' and 'confirm' remain entirely opaque, so an agent cannot know what values to supply or what confirm means.

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 states a specific verb ('Dispara') and resource ('automatización'), so an agent can infer the tool triggers an automation. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like ha_call_service or ha_run_script, which could also be used to trigger something.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ha_call_service or ha_run_script. It also lacks prerequisites, exclusion conditions, or context about when triggering an automation is appropriate.

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