triggers_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals it's a write operation, explains field preservation and parameter merging, and states the confirm requirement. It doesn't cover error conditions or rate limits but is adequate.

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?

Extremely concise—one sentence plus requirements. The [WRITE] prefix and parentheses summarize behavior efficiently. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (17 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It doesn't cover return values, error cases, or how to handle the merge logic beyond 'parameter'. Agents may need to read the schema for full context.

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 coverage is only 6%, but the description adds no parameter details beyond mentioning parameter merging. The schema is detailed, but the description does not explain which fields are updatable or how the merge works for non-parameter fields.

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 it updates a GTM trigger with a [WRITE] tag and explains read-modify-write behavior. It distinguishes from siblings like triggers_create and triggers_delete by noting field preservation and parameter merging.

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?

It explicitly requires GTM_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=true and confirm=true, guiding when to use. It implies a read-first workflow but doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like triggers_patch if any.

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