update_trigger

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: last-write-wins concurrency semantics and the edition requirement for scope filters. It omits important mutation behavior — whether unspecified required fields overwrite existing values, permission requirements, and error behavior — so it is partial rather than thorough.

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 tight clauses with the core action front-loaded and the constraint second; no filler. Slightly clipped to the point that the edition note reads as an unexplained caveat, but overall efficient.

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 6-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the schema covers defaults well, but the description never addresses full-replacement semantics or what a successful call returns/changes. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent reasoning about side effects.

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%, including CSV formats, defaults, and 'empty matches everything', so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only the edition caveat tied to filter_scopes and no other parameter-level meaning 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+resource ('Update an existing alert trigger'), which cleanly separates it from create_trigger, delete_trigger, and get_trigger in the sibling list. It doesn't go further to distinguish from update_channel/update_escalation_policy, but the resource noun does that implicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the '(last-write-wins)' parenthetical, and the Personal-edition constraint on scope filters is a genuine gating note. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (an existing trigger id), and no statement of what to use instead for partial/field-level edits.

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