create_trigger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add two genuinely useful facts beyond the schema: recovery notifications are relayed by default and scope filters are edition-gated. It says nothing about what the call returns, whether the trigger is immediately active, or what happens if channel IDs are invalid.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the two caveats. Every clause carries information.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and two constraints but omits what the call returns (e.g. the new trigger ID) and any preconditions around notification channels. The fully documented schema compensates for most parameter gaps, leaving the description adequate but thin.

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 the schema already documents all seven parameters including defaults and CSV formats; baseline is 3. The description's only added semantic is tying scope filters to the Personal edition, which complements the schema's 'advanced filters capability' note but does not extend beyond it.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new alert trigger'), which cleanly separates it from update_trigger, delete_trigger, list_triggers and get_trigger in the sibling set. It stops short of naming those siblings, so differentiation comes from the verb rather than explicit routing.

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 create a trigger versus updating an existing one, or what a trigger requires to be useful. The only usage-adjacent statement is an edition prerequisite for scope filters ('Scope filters require the Personal edition'), which is a constraint rather than a when-to-use rule.

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