Create Tracker queue trigger

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

Annotations already declare the operation is a non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context those annotations don't carry: the created conditions default to "always", and the call "Returns the new trigger" — a real addition given there is no output schema. It omits any auth/permission or duplicate-trigger caveats, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 tight sentences with the verb+resource front-loaded and no filler; every clause does work. The restatement of required fields is mildly redundant with the schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it creates, the required vs optional inputs, and that it returns the new trigger. Only operational caveats (permissions, duplicate-creation behavior) are missing.

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 100%, so queue_id, name, actions and conditions are all already documented in the schema. The description restates the required fields and supplies an inline action example (`{"type": "Transition", …}`), but that example largely duplicates the schema's AutomationAction description, so it lands at the baseline 3.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Create a trigger on a queue") and explains what the created object is — "actions that fire when an issue event matches conditions" — which lets an agent distinguish it from tracker_triggers_update or tracker_autoactions_create. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it doesn't reach 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is for adding a new queue trigger, but the description never states when to prefer it over tracker_triggers_update (existing trigger) or tracker_autoactions_create, nor does it give any prerequisite. Adequate context, no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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