trigger_workflow

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses the execution behavior (confirm flag controls preview vs actual execution), return type (JSON string with acknowledge/error), and that inputs should come from the user. Does not cover potential side effects or permissions, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Description is well-structured with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, front-loads the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

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 trigger tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameters, behavior of confirm, and return value. Could mention prerequisites (e.g., valid workflow config id) or error conditions, but the main functionality is sufficiently documented.

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 0%, yet description provides meaningful semantics for all 4 parameters: workflowConfigId (the id), event (start event name), inputs (additional payload with user-only constraint), confirm (preview vs execute). Adds critical usage instructions beyond schema structure.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('trigger'), the resource ('workflow by the given workflow config id'), and directly supports the tool's name. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_workflows or create_workflow by specifying the exact trigger action.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Input values must be obtained from the user only - do not pass random/placeholder values.' Also explains the confirm parameter's behavior (preview vs execute). Does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like execute_rule, but the trigger context is clear.

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