expose_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the main side effect—creating an automation and an endpoint trigger—and how the agent is started via trigger_automation using the route_name. It does not mention permissions or idempotency, but the core behavioral change is clearly disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds information. There is no filler or 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?

Given the tool has an output schema and all parameters are described in the schema, the description is adequately complete. It captures the essential purpose and mechanism without needing to repeat return-value or parameter details.

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 parameter semantics are already well documented. The description adds minimal additional meaning, only noting that route_name is the assigned route used for trigger_automation, which aligns with schema descriptions. This meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair: 'Expose an agent as an API endpoint trigger.' It clearly states what the tool does (creates an automation with an endpoint trigger) and distinguishes it from the sibling 'expose_workflow' by focusing on agents.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: to expose an agent as an API endpoint trigger so it can be invoked via trigger_automation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for most use cases.

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