activate_automation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the behavioral effect ('starts enrolling contacts'), which adds value beyond the name, but does not cover idempotency, permissions, reversibility, or side effects. A score of 3 reflects minimal but non-trivial behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise—two sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the action, the second explains the consequence. This is ideal for quick comprehension.

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 activation tool with well-documented schema parameters and no nested objects or output schema, the description sufficiently covers the primary behavior. It could mention return value (void vs status), but given 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (apiKey and automationId). The tool description adds no additional detail about parameter usage, format, or constraints, so it provides no extra value beyond schema. Baseline score of 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 the action ('Activate an automation') and explains the functional result ('New events matching its triggers will start enrolling contacts'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pause_automation (which stops enrollment) and enroll_in_automation (which triggers one-time enrollment).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pause_automation' or conditions under which activation is appropriate. Usage context is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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