trigger_drill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the access requirement (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, server restart) and the fact that start_login is insufficient. It doesn't describe post-call effects or return behavior, but the firing action and prerequisites are clearly surfaced.

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 compact and orderly: the action and scope in the first sentence, context in the second, and access notes in a short paragraph. No filler or repetition; every sentence contributes.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action, distinguishes it from automated drills, and includes critical setup steps. The main gap is that it doesn't indicate what the caller should expect after the drill is fired, but overall an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. It adds only the contextual hint that the challenger must be enrolled, which is useful but not a substantial semantic addition.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Fire') and a precise resource ('an on-demand Proof-Me drill against one enrolled challenger'), and clarifies that it is a real cross-channel identity challenge with the scheduled-safety-check label. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling drill/challenge tools and is not a tautology.

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 clearly states the use case (on-demand drill) and contrasts it with automated daily/monthly drills, and it supplies an explicit prerequisite and restart instruction. It does not name alternative tools to prefer instead, so it stops short of a full when/when-not matrix.

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