trigger_dag

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It honestly states that triggering a paused DAG creates a queued run that will not execute until unpaused, and that run_id is returned for status lookups. It does not contradict any annotations (none exist) and adds necessary caveats about execution.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, and a separate note for the paused-DAG behavior. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. A slight improvement would be to reduce redundancy between the initial sentence and the Args block, but overall it is clear and efficient.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, 1 required), lack of schema description, and presence of output schema, the description covers all necessary facets: parameter details, return type (DagRunSummary), and a critical behavioral note about paused DAGs. It also references a sibling tool for unpausing, making it self-contained.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: dag_id as the Airflow identifier, conf as an optional dict passed to the run, logical_date as ISO-8601 (defaults to now), and note as a human-readable string. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Trigger') and resource ('manual run of a DAG'), immediately clarifying the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., list_dags, set_dag_paused) by focusing on initiating a run.

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?

While it does not explicitly state 'use this when...', it implies the primary use case: manually triggering a DAG. The note about paused DAGs instructs the agent to check DAG state and references set_dag_paused as a complementary action, providing clear guidance on when this tool is (and is not) sufficient.

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