register_trigger

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining automatic evaluation on data updates, firing semantics, result POSTing to webhook_url, and the auto_execute path with the same payload format and execution-policy gates as execute_decision. It clearly discloses side effects and conditional behavior.

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 densely informative yet compact: core behavior first, then conditional/auto-execute behavior, then examples, then sibling tools, then return fields. Every sentence earns its place 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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and many siblings, this description is highly complete. It covers the trigger lifecycle, side-effect behavior, example use cases, related tools, and return fields, leaving little ambiguity for an agent deciding to call it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond that for auto_execute, webhook_url, and execution_webhook_url, including the relationship between them and the payload format alignment with execute_decision.

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 names a specific verb ('register') and resource ('real-time trigger') and explains exactly what the trigger does: watch a data source, evaluate a threshold, run a simulation, and optionally dispatch results. It differentiates itself from siblings by mentioning fire_trigger and delete_trigger as lifecycle companions.

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 gives concrete examples of when to register a trigger and explicitly points to fire_trigger for immediate testing and delete_trigger for removal. It does not explicitly state when not to use register_trigger in favor of other tools, so it stops just short of full exclusion guidance.

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