author_workflow_trigger

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral aspects: staging-only, always creates a disabled trigger, enabling is a separate human-controlled action, and authority comes from the authenticated principal. This gives a good picture of side effects and constraints, though it does not mention error behavior or returns.

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 well-structured: it leads with the purpose, then the prerequisite, then the staging/disabled behavior, and finally the authority scope. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or tangential content.

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?

The description provides good high-level context (staging, disabled, authority) but lacks essential parameter-level guidance. It does not explain how to set schedule, event_type, trigger_type, or site_project_id, nor what the output of the creation would be. The tool is complex with 10 parameters, and the description only partially equips an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only states that 'Event filters and configuration are JSON objects,' which covers event_filter and configuration. The other parameters (name, enabled, schedule, event_type, description, site_project_id, trigger_type, workflow_definition_id) are not described, leaving the agent with only names and defaults to infer their meaning.

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 tool's function: 'Create a governed schedule or event trigger for an authored workflow.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'get_workflow_trigger_catalog' and 'trigger_workflow'.

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 description gives clear usage context by instructing to 'Use get_workflow_trigger_catalog first' and explicitly notes this tool is 'staging-only and always creates a disabled trigger', implying when not to use it (when enabling automation). It also states it 'cannot author into an arbitrary foreign scope', providing an exclusion criterion. However, it does not name specific alternative tools beyond the catalog.

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