trigger_flow

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly warns 'Write: customer-visible; may send WhatsApp messages,' which discloses important side effects and customer impact beyond what the schema shows.

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?

Three short sentences each add distinct value: the action, the parameter provenance, and the side-effect warning. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is 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 simple two-parameter trigger with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter sources, and behavioral side effects. It does not mention return values or when not to use it, but the essential invocation guidance is present.

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 0%, but the description compensates by tying each parameter to a sibling tool output. This is meaningful added context, though it does not explain the expected format or deeper semantics of user_ns or flow_name.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Send a contact into a sub-flow.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from message-sending siblings like send_text and send_whatsapp_template, and explains what trigger_flow actually does.

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 gives concrete sourcing guidance for both required parameters: 'user_ns from find_contact; flow_name from list_flows.' This clearly implies when to use the tool and how to prepare inputs, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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