Delete Trigger

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the deletion is workspace-scoped and does not affect production until a new version is published. This is valuable context beyond the schema. It doesn't mention reversibility or permissions, but the production-impact clarification is significant.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the important scoping caveat follows immediately. 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 delete operation with no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is deleted, the scope, and the production impact. It doesn't mention whether the deletion is reversible or what the response contains, but the output schema exists and the core behavioral caveat is present. Slightly more detail on reversibility would make it complete.

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 four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb and resource: 'Delete a trigger from a workspace.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_trigger, revert_trigger, and list_triggers. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself with a similar delete operation, 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 description implies usage context by specifying the scope ('from a workspace') and the effect on production ('stays in production until a version without it is published'). This gives some guidance on when deletion takes effect, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_version or revert_trigger, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions.

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