Add an event 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 behavioral disclosure. It only states that a trigger file is created, but does not mention side effects, prerequisites such as whether the cloud flow must already exist, what happens on overwrite, or whether the operation is reversible. 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 a single, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the file-creation action and then adds the key integration detail about WorkflowExternalTrigger. Every word earns its place.

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 lack of annotations, absence of an output schema, and sparse schema documentation for most parameters, the description is too minimal to be complete. It does not cover behavior around overwrite, workspace resolution, required prerequisites, or return values. An agent would likely need to open the schema or guess about important edge cases.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It does add meaning for 'name' by showing it becomes part of the file path, and for 'flowId' by indicating it references the cloud flow. However, overwrite and description remain completely unexplained, leaving the compensation incomplete.

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 that the tool creates a trigger file named trigger/<name>.trigger.mcs.yml and associates it with a cloud flow via WorkflowExternalTrigger. This is a specific verb-resource pair and makes the tool's core function clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like cs_add_flow or cs_add_tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The phrase 'pointing at a cloud flow that starts the agent (WorkflowExternalTrigger)' implies the tool should be used when an event trigger backed by an external cloud flow is needed. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternative might be more appropriate, but the intended context is reasonably inferable.

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