Updating a automation schedule

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it's a mutating/destructive operation. The description adds 'Perm: manage_automations' which provides permission context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects, required state, or error scenarios.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences totaling 11 words. Every word carries weight—purpose and permission. No 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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters (including dry_run and confirm), nested body schema, and output schema, the description lacks behavioral context. It does not explain the preview/execute mode (dry_run), the confirmation requirement (confirm), or the structure of the body. The agent must rely solely on the schema, which is insufficient for safe usage.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Updating a automation schedule', identifying the verb (updating) and resource (automation schedule). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_automation_schedule' and 'delete_automation', but it could be more specific about what aspects can be updated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create or delete). The only extra info is a permission requirement, but no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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