update_automation

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the permission requirement 'Requires allow_automations', which is context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral details such as whether the change takes effect immediately, whether it is reversible, or what happens to a currently running automation. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 concise sentence plus a permission note. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly 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?

For a simple update operation with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and a key prerequisite. It could benefit from mentioning the return value or any side effects, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably 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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the parameters. The description does not explain that 'id' is the automation identifier or that 'enabled' determines whether the automation is active (true) or inactive (false). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but lack the clarity needed for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional inference.

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's purpose: enabling or pausing a scheduled automation. The verb 'Enable or pause' is specific and the resource 'scheduled automation' is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_automation, delete_automation, or run_automation_now.

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 for when to use the tool: when you want to change the enabled state of an existing scheduled automation. It also notes the required permission 'allow_automations', which is useful. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or explain when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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