create_trigger

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but say nothing about side effects, reversibility, or permissions. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'create', leaving the agent unaware of what creating a trigger actually does (e.g., whether it activates immediately, requires specific scopes, or has naming constraints). The openWorldHint=true suggests potential unknown side effects that the description fails to address.

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 short ('Create a new trigger') but this is under-specification, not conciseness. It front-loads nothing useful and fails to earn its place by providing any substantive guidance. The entire burden falls on the schema, which is insufficient for a complex nested object structure.

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 complexity (nested conditions and actions, no output schema, no explanation of trigger semantics), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what a trigger is, how conditions are evaluated, how actions apply, or what the response looks like. An agent would be forced to guess or infer critical behavior, especially with the openWorldHint flag.

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 all four parameters (title, conditions, actions, description) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without enhancing understanding of the nested structures (e.g., all/any conditions, action field/value semantics).

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 ('Create a new trigger'), which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like create_automation or create_macro, so an agent cannot tell what makes a trigger distinct. This meets the 'clear but no sibling differentiation' bar.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or comparison to other creation tools. An agent has no way to know if a trigger is the right choice for a given task.

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