trigger_collection

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the tool is expected to be mutating. The description adds 'immediate' but does not elaborate on side effects, such as whether the action is irreversible, asynchronous, or requires specific permissions. With annotations present, this is minimally adequate but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 a single, concise sentence that effectively conveys the core action and scope. It is appropriately brief for a zero-parameter tool, though it could be structured to separate purpose from usage context for better readability.

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 absence of parameters and output schema, and the presence of annotations, the description provides the essential purpose. However, it lacks details on outcomes, such as whether triggering collection affects ongoing operations or how to verify completion. A more complete description would mention expected behavior post-trigger.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is fully described (100% coverage). The description implies a global scope ('across all services'), which adds meaning beyond the schema. Since no parameters exist, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate, reflecting sufficient clarity without needing parameter details.

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 verb 'Trigger' and the resource 'earnings collection' with scope 'across all services', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like deploy_service or get_service_logs by focusing on the collection 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or consequences. The description lacks context about the appropriate scenarios for triggering collection, e.g., after deploying changes or as a manual override.

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