trigger_flow

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost no behavioral traits. It doesn't say that triggering is a side-effecting, non-idempotent action, whether re-triggering the same name runs it twice, what auth is required, or what 'legacy bridge' implies operationally. The word 'legacy' hints at deprecation but is never cashed out.

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, both front-loaded and both earning their place: the first defines the action, the second prevents confusion with a large sibling family. No filler.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description should explain what a trigger returns — a workflow run id, a status object, or nothing until waitForCompletion — and it does not. For a side-effecting tool with a free-form inputs object, this leaves the agent unable to predict the response and plan follow-up calls like get_flow_status.

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 100% and all three parameters are documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description echoes the schema ('by name with optional input parameters') without explaining the shape or valid keys of the free-form nested `inputs` object, which is the one genuinely ambiguous parameter.

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?

Specific verb ('Trigger') plus resource ('legacy bridge workflow record') and a name-based scope. The explicit 'This is not a Google Flow/Veo generation' distinguishes it from the many flow_*/generate_* siblings, though it doesn't clarify how it differs from create_flow or list_flows.

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?

The negative disambiguation against Veo/Flow video generation is genuinely useful given sibling names like generate_video and flow_browser_generate_video. But there is no positive guidance on when to prefer this over create_flow, list_flows, or get_flow_status, and no stated preconditions.

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