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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds concrete behavioral details: immediate removal, no recovery via this tool, and idempotent behavior with already_absent: true in the response. This goes beyond the annotation flags and enriches agent understanding.

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 compact and information-dense. Each sentence earns its place: primary action, key constraint (irreversibility), alternative, idempotency, and response shape. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource. Slightly long but justified by the number of useful facts.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations already covering destructive and idempotent behavior, the description is fully sufficient. It covers what the tool does, how to get the id, the alternative, the permanence, and the return value. Nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 single parameter trigger_id has full schema description coverage (100%). The description adds practical meaning by referencing list_triggers to obtain valid ids, which helps the agent construct a correct call. Since the schema already covers the basic definition, this extra guidance justifies a score above baseline.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Delete one trigger by trigger_id'. It also immediately distinguishes itself from sibling pause_trigger and points to list_triggers for finding ids, so an agent can select it without confusion.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool (to permanently delete) and provides the alternative for temporary stopping: 'To stop a trigger temporarily instead, use pause_trigger.' It also directs to list_triggers for id discovery. This is clear, actionable guidance.

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