km_set_trigger_xml

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'set/replace,' implying a mutation, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., does it overwrite entirely?), error conditions (e.g., invalid XML or index), permissions required, or any output. Transparency is insufficient for a write operation.

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 short sentences, with the first stating the purpose and the second providing a usage hint. No redundant information, every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, error handling, or any constraints (e.g., maximum XML size). For a 3-param required tool, this is incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., it does not explain what valid XML looks like or that triggerIndex is 1-based). No improvement over 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?

The description clearly states 'Set/replace the XML of a specific trigger in a macro,' which specifies the verb (set/replace) and the resource (trigger XML). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like km_get_trigger_xml (read) and km_set_action_xml (different resource).

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 advises 'Use km_get_trigger_xml first to understand the format,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. It implies a prerequisite but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest other alternatives beyond the getter.

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