update_trigger

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the important PATCH-like behavior: only fields that need changing should be sent. This goes beyond what the annotations provide and helps an agent avoid sending the full object.

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, focused sentences convey the core purpose and key usage rule with no wasted words. The most important instruction is front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 simple update operation with complete schema coverage and appropriate annotations, this description is largely sufficient. It lacks explicit mention of return behavior or authorization requirements, but these are not critical given the low complexity and no output schema. It does not leave major ambiguities for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing the partial-update intent, which is already implied by the schema's optional fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the operation: 'Atualiza um trigger existente' (updates an existing trigger). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_trigger, delete_trigger, and toggle_trigger. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 instruction 'Envia apenas os campos que deseja alterar' provides clear usage guidance for partial updates. It implies that the tool is for modifying an existing trigger rather than creating or deleting one, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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