enroll_in_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 prerequisite of active status and that enrollment is manual, but does not mention side effects (e.g., triggering automation steps), idempotency, permissions, or rate limits. For a mutation tool, this is insufficiently transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the main purpose and include necessary usage guidance. No wasted words. Each sentence serves a purpose.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema, the description omits what the call returns (e.g., success indicator, enrolled object). Parameter descriptions are adequate. Additional context about outcomes would improve completeness, but it is generally acceptable.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining that contactId can be looked up via search_contacts (a sibling tool) and that automationId is for an active automation. This context aids parameter selection beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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: 'Manually enroll a contact in an active automation'. It uses specific verb 'enroll' and specifies the resource (contact in automation). It also distinguishes from sibling tool 'send_event' by noting the alternative use case.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Manually enroll') and when to use an alternative ('Use send_event for event-driven enrollment'). It also provides a prerequisite: automation must be in 'active' status, which guides correct invocation.

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