create_automation

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, which aligns with a creation operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the need for allow_automations, the restriction to read-only tools, and the local and recurring nature of the automation. This enriches the behavioral profile without contradicting the structured hints.

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 action and purpose, followed by essential constraints. Every sentence carries meaningful information without 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 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate annotations, the description covers the core behavior, permission, and restrictions. It does not explain return values or edge cases, but the presence of sibling automation tools and the clarity of the creation task make this sufficiently complete.

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 75% (name, tool, interval_minutes all have descriptions; arguments lacks one). The description adds context about the tool parameter being read-only but does not elaborate on the arguments object or other parameters. At 75% coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description contributes only marginal additional meaning.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a recurring local automation that runs a read-only SysControl tool.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_automations, update_automation, and delete_automation by focusing on creation and adding constraints (recurring, local, read-only tool).

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?

It explicitly states the permission requirement 'Requires allow_automations' and specifies what cannot be scheduled ('Mutating, destructive, extension, and automation tools cannot be scheduled'). This gives clear boundaries on when to use the tool, though it does not name alternative tools for retrieval or updates.

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