gtm_update_trigger

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that – 'fingerprint conflict protection' – implying optimistic-concurrency semantics. However it never explains what a fingerprint is, how a conflict is surfaced (error? retry?), or that changes are confined to a workspace, so the added context is suggestive but incomplete.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key action and the conflict-protection trait come first. It is arguably too terse for a 29-parameter mutation tool, but as a conciseness/structure measure it wastes nothing.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation tool with 29 parameters and 24% schema coverage, this description is far too thin. The output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but partial-update mechanics, conflict handling, and workspace prerequisites are all left implicit.

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 only 24% across 29 parameters, so the description carries a heavy burden – and it provides essentially none. 'Selected trigger fields' is the only hint about parameter behavior, leaving the vast majority of params (limit, interval, selector, visibility fields, etc.) undocumented in both schema and 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 names a specific verb ('update') and resource ('trigger fields'), and 'selected fields' signals partial-update semantics rather than a full replace. It is clear what the tool does, though it offers no explicit differentiation from siblings like gtm_revert_trigger or gtm_create_trigger.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that workspace must exist and be current), and no alternatives named. An agent cannot tell from this text why it would pick gtm_update_trigger over gtm_revert_trigger or gtm_sync_workspace.

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