trigger_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool triggers a workflow and describes parameters. It does not disclose whether the action is synchronous, what the return value is (though an output schema exists), side effects, or success/failure behavior. The trigger nature implies a mutation but no safety guarantees are articulated.

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 very concise: one sentence plus a clear Args list. Every word serves a purpose. The structure is easy to parse for an AI agent. No superfluous information.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the core purpose and parameter meanings but omits behavioral details, return value implications, and integration context. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden for return value explanation, but the description does not reference it.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for each parameter: workflow_type (with example), objective (purpose), and inputs (optional JSON string). This adds meaning beyond the bare property names and types, but it is minimal and does not enumerate valid types or format constraints.

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 tool triggers a workflow execution, with a specific verb 'Trigger' and resource 'workflow execution'. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like github_trigger_workflow or stripe_run_workflow, which are for specific systems. The example workflow_type 'enterprise_document_intelligence' hints at a specific workflow engine but lacks explicit 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists parameters but gives no context about the workflow system or when to prefer this over other trigger tools. Users must infer usage from the parameter descriptions alone.

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