create_queue_trigger

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain context about what actions and conditions can express (Transition/Update/Webhook/CalculateFormula, field/event checks), but says nothing about when the trigger fires, its side effects, or required permissions, so the added value is moderate.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the param detail following. Efficient, though the trailing ellipsis ('…') in the action list reads as an unfinished enumeration rather than a deliberate shorthand.

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 create tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the two hard parameters but omits the required queueId/name semantics and any statement of trigger behavior or return. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 40% and the schema types actions/conditions as opaque objects (additionalProperties: {}), so the description's enumeration of action types and the And/Or condition envelope genuinely helps for those two params. It still leaves queueId, name, and active unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a queue trigger'), which is enough to separate it from read/update/delete siblings (get_queue_trigger, update_queue_trigger, delete_queue_trigger). However it gives no hint of how it differs from the near-neighbor create_queue_autoaction, so the differentiation from that sibling is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that the queue must exist), and no mention of alternatives such as create_queue_autoaction or update_queue_trigger. The text that follows the first sentence is parameter shape, not usage guidance.

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