update_conditional_trigger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the operation as a change (update) but does not mention idempotency, whether it overwrites or merges, authorization requirements, or side effects. The partial update behavior is hinted but not explicit.

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, each adding value. The first states what the tool does, the second gives a usage rule. No filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the lack of output schema, the description covers the basic update operation. However, it omits details like required triggerId, error scenarios, or confirmation of changes. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is low (20%), but the description adds meaning by listing the fields that can be changed (condition, interval, agent, enabled) which map to parameters (conditionText, repeatIntervalMinutes, agentId, enabled). This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions. However, it does not detail format or constraints beyond field names.

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 purpose: update a conditional trigger by changing specific fields. It lists the fields (condition, interval, agent, enabled) and uses a specific verb ('change'). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_conditional_trigger and delete_conditional_trigger.

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 instruction 'Send only what you are changing' provides guidance on partial updates, but there is no explicit context on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., create or delete), nor prerequisites such as the trigger must exist. Usage is implied but not fully elaborated.

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