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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations don't carry: authorization tiers (creator/builder/admin) governing which fields can be changed. It could go further on what disabling does to in-flight runs, but the added permission detail is substantive.

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 the core action front-loaded and the permission constraints packed into the second. No filler, though the authorization clause is a dense run-on that mixes three separate conditions.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition supplies the action, the field categories affected, and the permission model. Return behavior is unspecified, but the schema already covers parameter detail, leaving only minor gaps.

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 each of the five parameters is already documented in detail, including the queue-wide concurrency caveat. The description's mention of queue/concurrency changes parallels but does not extend the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update fields on a case trigger'), which clearly distinguishes it from the delete/get/list trigger siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tools, but the action and target are unambiguous.

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 second sentence gives real prerequisites (who may disable a trigger, change its queue, or change concurrency), which is useful before invoking. However, it never says when to use this versus upsertAgentTrigger, previewAgentCaseTriggerConflicts, or deleteAgentCaseTrigger, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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