update_trigger

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only indicates a mutation ('Update'), but fails to mention whether it is a partial or full update, any permissions required, error behaviors, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely brief ('Update a trigger'), but this is under-specification rather than good conciseness. It is front-loaded but fails to include any substantive information, making it less useful than a slightly longer description with relevant context.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, including nullable fields) and the presence of an output schema, the description still lacks essential context about update semantics, operational requirements, and non-obvious behavior. Even though return values may be covered by the output schema, the behavioral and usage context is missing, making the tool difficult to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters (e.g., 'New name', 'Enable/disable', 'New actions'). The description contributes no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 'Update a trigger.' clearly states the verb and resource, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and provides no details about what updating a trigger entails. It does imply a distinct operation from sibling create/get/list tools, but it lacks specific scope or context, making it minimally adequate.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_trigger, get_trigger, or list_triggers. The description does not mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or situations where other tools should be preferred, leaving usage entirely unexplained.

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