km_add_trigger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic fact of adding a trigger via XML, but doesn't disclose side effects, error handling, auth needs, or whether it overwrites existing triggers. Given this is a mutation tool, more transparency is expected.

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 a single sentence that fits well in a line. It is front-loaded with the action and method. While concise, it could be slightly expanded to include usage context without losing efficiency.

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 tool that modifies state (adds a trigger to a macro), the description is insufficient. It doesn't mention return values, error conditions, prerequisite macro existence, or behavior when multiple triggers exist. The 2-parameter, no-output-schema context demands more completeness.

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% with clear parameter descriptions (macro name/UID and XML example). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Add a trigger to a macro') and the method ('using XML'). It distinguishes from siblings like km_delete_trigger and km_set_trigger_xml, though it could explicitly mention that it creates a new trigger (as opposed to modifying existing).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. For example, it doesn't mention that the macro must exist or that this tool adds a new trigger (not replace).

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