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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and not idempotent, and the description adds real nuance: the trigger is retired and will never fire again, yet remains readable, indicating a soft-delete rather than a purge. It does not say how in-flight runs are handled or whether repeating the call is harmless, so it stops short of a 5.

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 short sentences, with the effect of the operation front-loaded before the usage cue. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and fully annotated safety traits, this covers purpose, effect, and trigger condition adequately. A brief note on how archived triggers surface in list_agent_triggers would close the remaining gap.

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 description mentions no parameters at all. With schema description coverage at 100%, both agent_id and trigger_id are already documented (including where to obtain them, via list_agents and list_agent_triggers), so the baseline 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 pairs a specific verb ("Retire") with the resource ("a trigger") and states the concrete effect: it never starts the agent again and stays readable. That distinguishes it from create_agent_trigger, update_agent_trigger and run_agent_trigger_now without naming them, though no sibling is explicitly called out by name.

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?

"Use this when the owner asks to delete a trigger" gives a clear triggering condition tied to user intent. It does not cover the when-not case, e.g. that update_agent_trigger should be used for a temporary pause, or whether a permanently removed trigger needs a different path.

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