create_automations_person

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing beyond the action itself. 'Trigger an Automation' implies side effects, yet the description omits what those effects are, whether the call is idempotent, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like.

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 sentence with no fluff and a helpful endpoint hint, making it well front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it provides no structural or contextual breakdown beyond the core statement.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation coverage, so the description must carry the completeness burden. It only identifies the action and omits side effects, return behavior, prerequisites, and usage context, making it inadequate for a mutation-like trigger tool.

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%, and the input schema already documents personId, automationId, extraBody, and extraQuery well. The description adds no parameter-level meaning or examples, so it stays at the baseline for a fully-covered 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 states a specific action ('Manually trigger an Automation') and resource ('for a specified Person'), and reinforces it with the endpoint. It clearly communicates the operation's purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling list/get/update_automations_person tools.

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 use case is implied: use this when you want to manually run an Automation for a Person. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools, no prerequisites like the Person and Automation needing to exist, and no alternatives or exclusions.

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