create_trigger

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes the creation process and parameter effects (e.g., max_consecutive_failures auto-pauses), but does not cover aspects like idempotency, conflict handling, or authorization requirements. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, followed by a structured parameter list. It is not overly verbose, though the parameter list could be slightly more integrated. Overall efficient and well-organized.

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 the complexity (8 params, 2 required) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the main intent and parameters. However, it lacks context on creation outcomes (e.g., returns a trigger ID), error scenarios, or how the trigger interacts with other system components. Adequate but incomplete.

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's parameter explanations are crucial. It provides meaningful details beyond the schema: cron expression format, IANA time zone, auto-pause on failures, execution timeout. Each parameter gets a concise, informative note that helps the agent understand values.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('cron-scheduled trigger'), and specifies that it runs an Antigravity interaction on a recurring schedule. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_trigger, list_triggers, run_trigger, etc.

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 implies the tool is for recurring scheduled tasks, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like create_interaction (one-off) or run_trigger (manual execution). No exclusion criteria or alternative tools are mentioned.

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