update_trigger

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

Annotations already communicate mutation, destructiveness, and idempotency, so the description's job is to add context such as whether omitted fields are preserved or reset and whether actions/conditions replace the existing set. The description provides none of this, leaving the core update semantics ambiguous.

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 only one sentence and has no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than usefully concise. Given the nested actions/conditions and update behavior, a sentence of this length cannot carry the necessary information.

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?

With five parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, a one-line description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It leaves unresolved whether the update is partial or wholesale, what happens to existing actions/conditions, and what the response looks like.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The tool description adds no parameter information, but the high coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.

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 names the verb and resource ('Update an existing trigger'), so an agent can tell this modifies a trigger rather than creates or deletes one. However, it essentially restates the tool name and gives no details about what can be updated or how it differs from neighboring update_* tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of get_trigger, create_trigger, delete_trigger, or update_automation/update_macro. It also does not state whether this is a partial update or a full replacement, which is essential routing information.

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