set_trigger_delay

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state which values are mutually exclusive (e.g., delay_type determining whether time_lower/time_upper apply), whether this requires the trigger to be in a stopped state, or any prerequisites. Only the enum semantics are disclosed.

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?

Two compact lines with the core concept front-loaded and enums listed efficiently. The terse 'event A -> event B' notation is slightly cryptic but not wasteful.

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 10-parameter trigger configuration tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation in the schema, the description is far too sparse. It explains the trigger concept and two enum families but omits source, level, and time-bound parameters that are essential to invoking it correctly. An output schema exists, so return values need not be covered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 10 parameters, the description must compensate heavily. It decodes slope_a/slope_b (POSitive|NEGative) and delay_type (GREater|LESS|GLESs|GOUT with <, >, inside, outside meanings), which is genuinely useful. However, source_a/source_b, level_a/level_b, time_lower/time_upper, and extra receive no explanation, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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+resource ('Delay trigger between two edges') and clarifies the event A -> event B semantics. It is distinguishable from edge/slope/window trigger siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name which sibling it is the 'delay' counterpart to.

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 indication of when to use this vs set_trigger_edge, set_trigger_slope, or other trigger modes. The description explains value encoding but provides no context or exclusions for tool selection.

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