triggers_update

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the read-modify-write pattern, field preservation, and parameter merging by key. It also states requirements for enabling writes and confirmation. However, it does not cover failure modes, side effects, or permissions beyond the environment variable.

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, concise sentence that front-loads critical information: operation type, target, behavior, and prerequisites. Every word adds value with no filler.

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 20 parameters, complex nested objects, and no output schema, the description is relatively brief. It explains core behavior but does not cover important details like optimistic concurrency (fingerprint) or how to construct filters. Additional guidance would improve 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 only 20%, so the description should compensate. It only adds meaningful semantics for the 'parameter' field (merged by key). For most other fields like name, type, notes, etc., the description provides no additional meaning, leaving agents to rely on the sparse schema descriptions.

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 starts with '[WRITE]' and states 'Update a GTM trigger', clearly identifying it as a write operation for modifying an existing trigger. It distinguishes from siblings like triggers_create (create new) and triggers_delete (remove) by specifying update behavior and the read-modify-write pattern.

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 mentions required environment variable GTM_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=true and confirm=true, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like triggers_get for reading or triggers_create for creation. The context of sibling tools implies usage, but it could be more explicit.

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