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 disclosing behavior. It does not say whether execution is asynchronous, whether it returns a run identifier, whether it has side effects, or whether it validates workflow_type before triggering. The bare phrase 'Trigger a workflow execution' leaves the actual execution semantics undisclosed.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a clear Args block. There is no fluff, and each line adds information not present in the schema.

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?

Although an output schema exists and parameters are documented, the description is incomplete for a tool that kicks off execution. It omits when to use it, whether it blocks or returns immediately, and any prerequisites beyond referencing list_workflows. Given many workflow-related siblings and zero annotations, this is a notable gap.

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 zero description coverage, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It usefully explains that workflow_type is a public workflow_ref from list_workflows and that inputs is an optional JSON string. All three parameters are addressed, though objective could use more detail about acceptable phrasing or length.

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 action ('Trigger a workflow execution') and identifies the resource (a workflow, referenced via workflow_type from list_workflows). It is clear enough to know what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like run_workflow or dynamic_workflow_start.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus run_workflow, dynamic_workflow_start, github_trigger_workflow, or author_workflow_trigger. The only contextual hint is that workflow_type comes from list_workflows, which implies a prerequisite but does not explain when this trigger tool is the right choice.

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