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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so this is credit for added context: the description warns that the automation "laeuft danach automatisch und kann Daten schreiben," disclosing delayed/deferred side effects that go beyond the immediate call. It does not, however, address the non-idempotent behavior (duplicate triggers) or permission requirements beyond what the schema states.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and sibling routing in a few compact sentences. The trailing "| EN: trigger, automation, rule, event, condition, effect" keyword list is padding rather than instruction, which keeps it from a 5.

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 non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations and full schema coverage give an agent enough to act: operation semantics, deferred side effects, and sibling routing are all present. Minor gaps remain around success/failure response and required permissions, but these are largely covered by annotations and the scope_id schema note.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, including the extensive body format. The description adds no parameter-level detail (not even for the required body or scope_id), so the baseline 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?

Specific verb ("anlegen"/create) and resource ("Trigger") with scope qualifier ("zeit- oder ereignisgesteuerter Ablauf"). It explicitly routes the agent to siblings: "Bestehende aenderst du mit onto_trigger_update; Loeschen: onto_trigger_delete." An agent can distinguish this from update/delete without opening a schema.

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?

States the use case ("fuer wiederkehrende Aufgaben") and names the alternatives for the adjacent operations (onto_trigger_update, onto_trigger_delete), which is exactly the routing a create tool needs. The when-not case (existing triggers) is covered by pointing to update.

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