update_comment_trigger

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

Despite annotations already flagging destructive=true and idempotent=false, the description adds real behavioral context: specific failure modes (plan_limit_reached at the live cap, flow_conflict when linked flows aren't ready), the side effect that changing button titles/types pauses linked flows and the trigger for branch review, and that the response carries flow_impact. That is well beyond what the annotations convey and is exactly what an agent needs before a destructive write.

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 most important constraint ('send only what should change', activation safety) is front-loaded, but the sentence 'the whole trigger is re-validated' appears twice in near-identical form, and the final paragraph repeats the 'never switches on without active: true' idea already implied earlier. Trimming the duplication would tighten it without losing meaning.

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 20-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the risky surfaces: activation, re-validation prerequisites, flow side effects, and the flow_impact return field. It leaves most data fields to the schema, which is acceptable at 90% coverage, though the absence of any note on how partial arrays (e.g. buttons, keywords) are merged versus replaced is a small gap.

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 90%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by adding cross-parameter semantics the schema can't express—'a draft needs its DM text and a button before any edit saves' and the linkage between button edits and flow pausing. It does not explain the remaining fields (platform, source_type, keywords), but those are already documented in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Update a comment trigger') and clarifies that it 'Edits a trigger that may be live', which distinguishes it from create/duplicate/delete siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferred from the verb rather than stated.

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?

It gives concrete operating guidance: 'Send only what should change; the rest is kept', which tells the agent this is a partial update, and it warns 'It never switches a trigger on unless you send active: true; confirm with the user before you do.' What's missing is any explicit routing against alternatives such as create_comment_trigger or duplicate_comment_trigger.

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