conduyt_update_automation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a mutation and names some changeable fields, but it does not explain permissions, partial-update semantics, side effects on active runs, or whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared. Important behaviors such as activeRunPolicy and triggerConditions replacement are only covered by the schema, not by the description.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds to the scope of what can be updated.

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?

This is an unannotated mutation tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and several non-obvious behaviors such as partial updates, triggerConditions replacement, and activeRunPolicy. The description is too thin to prepare an agent for those complexities, leaving the schema to carry nearly all of the context.

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 already documents all 11 parameters and the activeRunPolicy enum. The description mentions only a subset of editable concepts and adds little semantic detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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: update an existing automation. It lists the main editable aspects (trigger, actions, schedule, activation status), so an agent can tell it modifies automations rather than creating or listing them. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from publish_automation, which is a nearby sibling with overlapping activation semantics.

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 phrase 'Update an existing automation' implies the tool is used when modifying an existing automation. However, no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives are given, particularly against create_automation and publish_automation, so the agent must infer routing.

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