set_trigger_status

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

The description discloses the SQL mechanism (ALTER TRIGGER) and the writable connection requirement, adding behavioral context beyond the annotations. Since destructiveHint is already true, the description does not need to restate that, but it does clarify the exact operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and annotations, this description is complete. It covers the core action and the key constraint (writable connections) without needing to explain return values or error handling.

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 descriptions for all parameters are present and comprehensive (trigger_name example, action values, connection requirements). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond referencing ENABLE/DISABLE, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Enable or disable a trigger via ALTER TRIGGER name ENABLE/DISABLE.' It uses specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_trigger, which creates triggers rather than changing their status.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Only available on writable connections.' This gives important context for when the tool can be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the purpose is self-evident given the sibling tool names.

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