gtm_update_trigger

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'full GTM Trigger resource', implying a complete overwrite rather than a partial update, which is a useful trait. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, side effects, or error conditions.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It immediately conveys the action and the input format, making it easy to parse.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is sparse. It does not explain the return value, prerequisites, or what happens on success/failure. It gives only the core action and a hint about trigger_json, leaving the agent with insufficient context for robust invocation.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning to trigger_json by specifying it must be a 'full GTM Trigger resource', but does not elaborate on the four ID parameters. Their meanings are largely self-evident from names, but the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Description clearly states the action 'Update an existing trigger' with a specific resource type, and defines the input as 'a full GTM Trigger resource (JSON string)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create/delete/list triggers.

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 like gtm_create_trigger or gtm_delete_trigger. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for when an agent should invoke it.

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