trigger_synthesis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is generated but does not reveal whether the operation is asynchronous, how results are retrieved, whether repeated calls create duplicates, or any side effects. For a 'trigger' tool, this lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence with useful parenthetical clarification. Every word earns its place, and the verb is front-loaded. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a tool with one optional parameter.

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?

The tool is a simple trigger with no output schema, but the description still lacks important context: what the response contains, whether the synthesis runs synchronously, and how to check for results. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more guidance on expected behavior, but it only offers a high-level outcome.

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 100% for the single optional parameter site_id, which is well-documented as 'Site ID to scope to (omit for all sites)'. Since the schema already explains the parameter, the description need not add more, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not complement or conflict with the schema.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Trigger') and resource ('brief synthesis'), and explains the outcome as 'generates editorial briefs from scraped content'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trigger_ingestion or trigger_profile by specifying the unique output (editorial briefs) and input source (scraped content).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, sequencing relative to other trigger tools, or exclusions. The phrase 'from scraped content' only implies a precondition but offers no explicit direction.

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