node_create_trigger

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses that this is a mutating create operation and that the resulting trigger will start workflow execution, which is meaningful behavioral context. It omits permissions, whether the trigger is active immediately upon creation, and duplicate/slug conflict behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then purpose, then prerequisite. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

Adequate for a simple four-parameter create call, but with no output schema the description never indicates what comes back (e.g., the new node ID that node_connect/node_update later need) and gives no idempotency or error expectations.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description only indirectly helps by pointing at get_nodes_info for valid trigger_type values; it adds no syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new trigger node in a scheme') and adds a functional gloss distinguishing triggers from other node types: 'Triggers start the execution of automation workflows.' It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling node_create_action, but the trigger/action distinction is carried by the name and gloss.

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 one concrete prerequisite ('Call get_nodes_info first to see available types'), which is useful sequencing guidance, but says nothing about when to use this versus node_create_action or when creation is inappropriate.

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