update_automations_person

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (pause/unpause) but gives no information about side effects, permissions required, reversibility, response format, or what happens to associated automation runs. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Pause or unpause') and includes the endpoint for reference. Every word contributes; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, 4 params (one undocumented), and a relatively narrow action, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what an 'Automation for a Person' represents, how extraBody/extraQuery are used, or any error/return behavior. An agent would need to infer a lot from the schema and sibling tools.

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 coverage is 75% (status, extraBody, extraQuery have descriptions; id lacks one). The description does not add any detail beyond what the schema already provides for status. It doesn't elaborate on the meaning of id, extraBody, or extraQuery, and fails to compensate for the undocumented id parameter. Basis score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage, but no extra value is added.

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 ('Pause or unpause') on a clear resource ('an Automation for a Person') and also provides the HTTP endpoint. This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_automations_person (retrieval) or create_automations_person (creation).

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 implicitly indicates it is used for pausing/unpausing automations for a person, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, nor any excluded scenarios (e.g., other automation updates). No guidance is given about prerequisites or when to resort to list_automations_people or other tools.

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