trigger_report

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

Annotations already cover readOnly=false, destructive=false, and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is set; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: one call per fire, at the end, and that notify=true causes a user-facing notification now. It stops short of saying what happens to the summary (where it surfaces) or whether reporting is idempotent.

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 the action first and the how-to details trailing, and every clause carries information (one call per fire, timing, all three parameters). Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

Small three-parameter tool with no output schema, and the description covers purpose, timing, all parameter usage, and the notification side effect. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly on the first try.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: the summary is constrained to 'one line', fire_id comes from the [self-starter] message, and notify should be true only when the user should be told now. This sharpens the schema's terser wording rather than repeating it.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Report that you finished handling a trigger fire', and it defines what a fire is ('a message that starts with [self-starter]'), a concept no sibling tool explains. An agent can distinguish this from trigger_history or trigger_get without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit timing and frequency: 'Call it once per fire, at the end', which directly answers when to invoke it. It does not name an alternative or a when-not condition, but the sibling set offers no competing 'report completion' tool, so the gap is minor.

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