Create a routine trigger

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds the authorization class ('board_or_agent') and the HTTP method, but does not disclose other behaviors like whether triggers can overlap or what happens on duplicate creation.

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 short sentences with no redundant words. However, the first sentence essentially repeats the title, which is slightly wasteful. Still, it's efficiently structured.

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 complexity (nested objects, oneOf, 2 required params, output schema exists but not described), the description is too minimal. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., routine must exist), return value, or error scenarios.

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 0% from the description. The description does not explain the oneOf variants (schedule, webhook, api) or any parameter details. The complex input schema requires clarification that the description fails to provide.

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 title and first sentence both state 'Create a routine trigger', clearly indicating the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like pc_patch_routine_triggers_by_id (update) and pc_delete_routine_triggers_by_id (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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that a routine must exist first or compare with patch/delete operations.

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