triggers_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explicitly labels the operation as [WRITE], explains that omitted fields are preserved, and specifies that `parameter` is merged by key. It also discloses the environment flag and confirmation requirement, which are important safety-relevant behaviors.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the operation type and packs in the most important behavioral constraints. There is no filler, and every clause 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?

Given the tool's high complexity (20 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the most critical operational semantics: read-modify-write behavior, field preservation, parameter merge behavior, and write-enablement requirements. It does not explain return values or trigger-type-specific nuances, but the rich input schema supplies field-level detail for those.

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?

The description adds crucial parameter-level meaning beyond the schema by explaining that `parameter` is merged by key and that omitted fields are preserved, which is essential for correct read-modify-write calls. It does not enumerate all 20 parameters, but the schema already provides many per-property descriptions, and the merge behavior is more valuable than restating field names.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: "[WRITE] Update a GTM trigger," and adds a specific read-modify-write model. This unmistakably distinguishes it from sibling tools like triggers_create, triggers_get, and triggers_delete.

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 states that this is an update operation with a read-modify-write pattern and requires both GTM_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=true and confirm=true, giving clear conditions for invocation. It does not explicitly contrast with triggers_create, but the update-vs-create distinction is implied by the operation name and description.

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