gtm_update_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 signals mutation but omits important behavioral traits like whether the update is a full replacement of the trigger resource, how the fingerprint's optimistic locking works, or what consequences the update has.

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 sentence with a front-loaded verb and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a narrow operation, even though brevity comes at the cost of richer guidance.

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 that likely requires a full trigger object and an optimistic-lock fingerprint, this description is too sparse. It does not explain replacement semantics, the need to obtain a current fingerprint first, or the response shape, and there is no output schema or annotations to compensate.

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 high (83%): five of six parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and the nested 'trigger' object remains undocumented, but the high schema coverage keeps this at the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Updates'), a specific resource ('an existing trigger'), and the system ('GTM'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like gtm_create_trigger, gtm_delete_trigger, and gtm_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says what it does, not when it should be chosen, and does not mention prerequisites such as the trigger already existing or fetching the trigger first.

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