trigger_action

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuine value beyond that by clarifying the side effect is limited to in-memory state and that no commands are executed, no jobs started, no network reached. It does not cover permissions or retention of the recorded state, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core side-effect ('record an action request ... return the updated state') is front-loaded. The second sentence exists solely to prevent a common misreading (that this executes something), so it earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is recorded, what is mutated, what is returned, and what is explicitly not done. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the stated return value ('the updated state').

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?

There is a single parameter, fully documented by the schema (100% coverage) with an enumerated value set, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the meaning of the individual enum values (run-dag, run-harness, run-diff), which is the minimum viable baseline for a fully-covered single param.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it records an action request into the server's in-memory state and returns the updated state. An agent immediately understands this is a state-annotation tool, not an executor. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the siblings (get_status, show_agenthub_monitor), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this when it wants the dashboard to reflect a requested action, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, nor any reference to the sibling tools. The 'does not execute commands' note sets expectations for the caller but is not a selection guideline.

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