Expose Agent

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (which only set readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by detailing the concrete behavior: it creates an automation and an endpoint trigger, and assigns a route_name. This is meaningful context that helps predict side effects. It does not disclose potential edge cases like duplicate automation names, but the core creation behavior is clearly stated.

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: a concise one-sentence summary followed by a one-sentence explanation of the automation/endpoint wrapping. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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's complexity (6 parameters, output schema present), the description explains both the purpose and the underlying mechanism (automation + endpoint trigger) sufficiently for an agent to decide to invoke it. It does not describe return values, but the output schema covers that. The only minor gap is not explicitly contrasting with expose_workflow, but the resource distinction is clear.

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 schema itself fully documents each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but does not need to. It mentions route_name in the context of how the agent will be triggered, which is a minor extra connection.

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 verb and resource: 'Expose an agent as an API endpoint trigger.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like expose_workflow (exposes a workflow) and trigger_automation (triggers an existing automation). The second sentence further clarifies the mechanism, 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 provides clear context by explaining that the agent can be started via trigger_automation using the assigned route_name, and that it wraps the agent with an endpoint trigger. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the distinct mention of trigger_automation and the contrast with expose_workflow imply appropriate usage scenarios.

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