props_trigger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Trigger' implies an action that causes something to happen, but it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are needed, whether it's idempotent, or what the expected outcome is. The description is too minimal to provide adequate behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it lacks detail, it's structurally efficient with every word contributing to the basic purpose statement.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'display' means, what happens after triggering, whether there are side effects, or what the user should expect. Given the complexity implied by 'trigger' and lack of structured data, the description should provide more context about the operation's behavior and outcomes.

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% with one parameter ('id') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema ('The ID of the prop to trigger'). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without extra param info 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 'Trigger a specific prop to display' states a verb ('trigger') and resource ('prop'), but is vague about what 'prop' means in this context and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'props_clear', 'props_get', or 'props_set'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about the domain or how it differs from similar operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'props_set', 'props_clear', or 'props_get'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or what happens after triggering. It's a bare statement with no contextual usage information.

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