run_flow

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

Annotations already flag destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, so the description's job is to add context, and it does: it discloses the ownership/auth requirement, that the call is asynchronous and returns immediately, and the non-obvious caveat that @triggerBody() evaluates to null here. The only gap is that it never says what the call returns (e.g., a run id) or what gets created, which matters for a destructiveHint tool.

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 action and its precondition are front-loaded, followed by a parameter note, then the HTTP-trigger caveat, then the async return behavior. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing restates the name or annotations.

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 destructive, asynchronous mutation with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition covers auth, trigger semantics, payload limitation, and follow-up polling — enough to invoke it safely. The residual gap is the unexplained `inputs` parameter and the absence of any statement about the return value of an async 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It does a thorough job on trigger_name (internal name from get_flow, 'manual' for button flows, recurrence trigger name for scheduled ones) but says nothing about `inputs` — the parameter most likely to be misused given the body-forwarding caveat — leaving one of three parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Trigger a flow now') plus the defining scope distinction ('without waiting for its schedule'), which separates it from get_flow and list_flows. The ownership prerequisite is stated in the same breath, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does and under what standing.

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 routes the agent explicitly: use get_flow to obtain trigger_name, use the flow's real HTTP URL instead of this endpoint when the flow depends on its payload, and poll list_runs for the outcome. That is when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and named alternatives in three sentences.

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