write_automation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses snapshotting, inclusive-range replacement, reread confirmation, automatic rollback on failure, and the key invariant that declared ranges always mean replacement. This is strong behavioral disclosure, though it omits details like permission needs or undo behavior.

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 sentences with no redundant wording. The core action and transactional guarantees are front-loaded, and the key range-replacement rule is stated as a crisp closing guideline.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, a two-sentence description is insufficient on its own. The schema helps, but the description does not cover selection precedence, dry_run, fx_scope semantics, or expected return values. It provides the core transactional contract but leaves meaningful gaps for safe invocation.

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 54%, slightly above the low threshold, so baseline is 3. The description clarifies the meaning of 'ranges' by stating that a declared range always means replacement, adding some value beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the shape or interaction of points, clear_existing_in_range, or fx_scope, leaving parameter semantics under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Write') with a clear resource ('one FX-parameter envelope') and distinct transactional semantics. This differentiates it from siblings like apply_automation_transaction, which likely handles broader automation changes.

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 transactional framing implies this tool is intended for safe, rollback-protected automation writes, but it never explicitly states when to prefer it over alternatives like set_fx_param, get_fx_param_automation, or apply_automation_transaction. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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