set_transition_trigger

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether existing triggers are replaced or appended, whether the transition must already exist, or any side effects. The minimal wording 'Add a named Trigger' leaves the mutation semantics unspecified.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It is appropriately brief for a simple operation, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the concept of a trigger in a transition, any constraints (e.g., uniqueness, existence), or what the output schema represents. An agent would need external knowledge to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It only hints that trigger_name is the name of the trigger, and provides no explanation of transition_id beyond its name. This is insufficient for a tool with no schema-level documentation.

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 action (Add) and the resource (a named Trigger to a Transition). It distinguishes from related siblings like set_transition_guard and set_transition_effect, though it does not explicitly name them. The purpose is unambiguous for an agent familiar with UML concepts.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The description implies a simple add operation but offers no context for selecting it over other transition-related setters.

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