trigger_activate

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

Annotations only declare this as non-read-only and non-destructive; the description adds substantial context beyond that — the probe runs on a schedule, each fire hands the task back to the agent, and the trigger persists on its own afterwards. That autonomy/persistence disclosure is exactly the behavior an agent needs before calling. It does not say how to undo it or what the immediate response contains, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Two compact sentences with the primary effect stated first and the caution second — good front-loading and no redundant restatement of the title. 'Hands the task back to you' is slightly colloquial for an operational contract, but it is not wasted text.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive activation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: what starts, what keeps happening, and the confirmation question. It is thin on the immediate return value and on how activation relates to trigger_resume, which are the only notable gaps.

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% and the single parameter already documents that draft_id comes from trigger_draft. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter (format, validity, or what happens with a stale id), so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a concrete verb-plus-resource framing ('Turn a draft on') and explains the immediate consequence ('its probe starts running on schedule'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from trigger_pause/trigger_resume by scoping the input to a draft, but it never names a sibling tool to contrast with, so an agent must infer the draft-vs-existing-trigger distinction.

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?

It gives a real precondition for use: the trigger becomes autonomous, so 'decide first whether the user should confirm it.' The escape hatch is delegated to an external skill ('the self-starter:triggers skill says when to ask') rather than stated inline, which leaves the actual condition unstated in the description itself.

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