delete_trigger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is deletion, implying a destructive operation, but doesn't mention whether this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., impact on associated workflows). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, direct sentence in Japanese that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key information (deleting a trigger) and has zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured for its minimal 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?

Given this is a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 4 required parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permanence or permissions, provide usage context, or explain return values. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall, the description lacks sufficient detail for safe and effective use.

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, with all four parameters documented in Japanese (accountId, containerId, workspaceId, triggerId). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or relationships between IDs. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'トリガーを削除します' (Deletes a trigger) clearly states the action (delete) and resource (trigger), but it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_tag' or 'delete_variable' that perform similar deletion operations on different resources. The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation from related deletion 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing triggerId from list_triggers or get_trigger), nor does it specify when deletion is appropriate versus updating with 'update_trigger'. There's no context about alternatives or exclusions.

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