create_trigger

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true), the description discloses that it commits automatically (DDL) and is only available on writable connections, which are important behavioral traits. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 concise with three short sentences, each providing meaningful information without filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 output schema exists and annotations are present, the description covers the core behavior and constraints (DDL, commit, writable connection) adequately. It does not need to detail return values or every edge case.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for both parameters (connection and trigger_sql), so the description adds little extra meaning. It restates that the statement must start with CREATE, but this is already implied in the trigger_sql schema description.

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 'Create or replace a trigger using a full DDL statement' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_procedure and set_trigger_status. It also adds constraints like 'must start with CREATE' and 'Only available on writable connections'.

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 clear usage context by stating the tool only works on writable connections, commits automatically, and requires the statement to start with CREATE. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool versus siblings like set_trigger_status.

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