update_automation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real value: it discloses the admin auth requirement, the partial-update semantics ('only supplied fields change'), and the non-obvious side effect that setting active=true re-enables a rule auto-disabled after repeated failures. It omits reversibility and any indication that actions/conditions are wholesale replacement (left to the schema), so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two most decision-relevant qualifiers (admin scope and re-enable behavior). Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand on its own, and it covers the key non-schema behaviors (auth scope, partial update, re-enable semantics, hosted-only). The rich 100%-covered schema handles nested action/condition detail, so remaining gaps are minor.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by adding meaning the schema lacks for the active parameter — that setting it true specifically revives an auto-disabled rule, not merely toggling a boolean.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update an automation rule'), which is unambiguous against create_automation/delete_automation/list_automations. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts with those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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?

Gives concrete usage constraints: 'admin only' and 'Hosted API only', which qualify who and where the tool applies. It stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer it over create_automation or how to handle a non-existent rule, so no true when-not guidance is present.

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