create_trigger

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive write operations. The description adds that creations are in draft and not live until published, which is valuable context beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise and well-structured with an Args section. It includes a detailed example for customEventFilter, which adds value but is somewhat lengthy. Overall efficient with minimal fluff.

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?

With 4 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, behavior (draft-only), and return value (including triggerId). It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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%, but the description provides detailed parameter explanations: account_id, container_id, workspace_id are described with types, and the trigger parameter includes required fields ('name', 'type'), examples, and specifics for customEvent triggers. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Creates a trigger in the workspace draft' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_tag, create_variable, etc., by specifying 'trigger' and noting that changes remain in draft until published.

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 description provides usage context by explaining that changes stay in draft and nothing goes live until a version is published. It also instructs how to find workspace_id via list_workspaces. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives.

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