nexo_automation_instructions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool sets or clears instructions without modifying the core prompt, but it omits details like whether instructions are overwritten each call, whether the operation is reversible, or any permission requirements. The description only covers the basic action.

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 sentence of 14 words that is front-loaded and concise. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 state-setting tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential action. It could briefly mention that the tool returns a success/failure response or that multiple calls overwrite previous instructions, but overall it is nearly complete for its purpose.

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 has three parameters with zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'set or clear' corresponds to providing text (set) or setting clear=true (clear), which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not detail the behavior of the name parameter or clarify the default behavior when both text and clear are provided.

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 verb ('Set or clear') and the resource ('operator-side extra instructions for one automation'). It specifies that it operates without editing the core prompt, which distinguishes it from other automation tools like nexo_automation_schedule or nexo_automation_disable.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where setting instructions is appropriate or when to use other automation tools. The phrase 'without editing the core prompt' hints at non-destructive updates but does not provide actionable usage context.

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