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 burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Create a trigger in a workspace,' which implies a mutating operation, but it does not mention permissions, reversibility, validation behavior, or side effects. The extra trigger-type explanation is about parameter construction, not runtime behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second paragraph adds only high-value parameter guidance without fluff. Every sentence 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?

For a 4-parameter create operation with an output schema and fully described parameters, the description is largely complete. It adds trigger-type context and a fallback for shape uncertainty. It could additionally mention permissions or uniqueness constraints, but the combination of schema and description covers the essential invocation knowledge.

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?

The schema already covers all 4 parameters with examples (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance by enumerating valid trigger type codes and recommending get_trigger for copying the shape, which goes beyond the schema's JSON example.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a trigger in a workspace'), unambiguously identifying the action and object. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like list_triggers, update_trigger, and delete_trigger by the 'create' verb.

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 establishes the tool's core use case, creating a trigger, and provides practical guidance for the trigger shape: 'Copy the shape from an existing trigger via get_trigger when unsure.' While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use this tool or compare with update_trigger, the context is clear and the get_trigger pointer offers an alternative for shape uncertainty.

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