start_automation_email

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

Beyond annotations, the description adds key behavioral details: authentication via API key, max 10 concurrent requests, and respect for read-only/dry-run modes. This provides the agent with important operational constraints not captured in the annotation fields.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, detailed explanation, behavioral notes, and an Args/Returns section. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the format is front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 tool has an output schema, so the brief 'Returns' note is sufficient. Parameter descriptions are complete, behavioral details are provided, and the description covers all necessary aspects for a simple resume action. No gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning: workflow_id, workflow_email_id, and account (with example and reference to list_accounts). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 resumes sending a specific automation email that was previously paused, distinguishing it from starting an entire automation or pausing. It uses specific verbs ('start', 'resumes') and identifies the resource ('automation email'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 indicates the tool is for classic automations and resuming a paused email, implying when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough to differentiate from siblings like pause_automation_email and start_automation.

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