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

The description adds valuable behavioral context about authorization: only the trigger creator or a builder/admin can disable an enabled trigger or change its queue, and only a builder/admin can change queue concurrency. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and helps set expectations for side effects and permissions.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the core purpose ('Update fields on a case trigger') before adding essential permission constraints. Every sentence earns its place; there is no extraneous 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 write operation with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states the purpose, the key permission constraints, and the schema provides rich parameter details. It could mention what happens after the update or reference related tools like previewAgentCaseTriggerConflicts, but given the annotations and schema, it covers the essential context.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all five parameters, so the description does not need to add much. It does indirectly reference parameter behavior through the permission note (e.g., disabling via 'enabled', changing queue via 'case_queue_id', and concurrency via 'concurrency'), but these are not systematically explained in the description.

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 tool updates fields on a case trigger, which differentiates it from create/delete/get/list siblings. It does not enumerate the specific fields, but the schema covers those. The verb 'Update' is specific and the resource 'case trigger' is clear, though it could be more explicit about which fields are updatable.

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 implies this tool is for updating existing case triggers, and the permission note provides context on who can perform certain actions. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like upsertAgentTrigger, nor does it offer exclusions or prerequisites beyond role restrictions.

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