zda_update_trigger

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

With no annotations, the description fully warns that the tool affects live ticket flow and explains the confirmation mechanism. It also lists common updatable fields, though it does not detail authentication or reversibility.

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?

Four sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose, then warns, explains workflow, and lists common fields. Every sentence is necessary and well-placed.

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 (guarded update, no output schema), the description covers core usage, safety, and parameter guidance. It could mention return values, but the overall completeness is high for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 67% (id and data described). The description adds value by explaining require_confirm usage and listing common data fields (title, conditions, actions, etc.), which helps with the passthrough 'data' parameter.

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 states 'Update an existing Zendesk trigger,' using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create or delete triggers.

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 provides explicit context: 'GUARDED: this object affects live ticket flow' and a clear workflow pattern ('preview then apply'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the preview mechanism implicitly guides safe usage.

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