update_automation

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Edits an existing automation' but does not mention required permissions, side effects, partial update semantics, or any constraints. The word 'Edita' implies mutation, but details are lacking.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb. No redundancy, but could be slightly more concise by merging. Still efficient.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on available fields, error handling, validation, or examples. Users would need to guess how to adjust timing or other settings.

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 0% with 12 parameters. The description fails to explain any parameters beyond implying 'active' and 'timing' (scheduled_at/delay_minutes). It adds minimal value over the bare 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 clearly states the tool edits an existing automation, with specific use cases (activate/deactivate or adjust timing). It distinguishes from create/delete siblings. However, it only mentions two use cases, while the schema supports many more fields, making it slightly narrow.

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 implies usage for activating/deactivating or adjusting timing, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with siblings like create_automation or delete_automation. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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