trigger_flow

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

Description adds that the tool requires WRITE_ENABLED=true, which implies write side effects, but beyond that it offers no disclosure of behavioral traits such as whether flows run synchronously, what happens on failure, or any potential side effects. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds minimal value.

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 a single sentence that packs the core purpose and a key prerequisite. It is extremely concise without any wasted words, earning the highest score.

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?

The description lacks critical context: it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., an execution ID), whether the flow execution is synchronous or asynchronous, or how to handle errors. With no output schema, the description should fill these gaps but fails to do so, making it incomplete for effective use.

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 input schema already provides good descriptions for both parameters (flow_sys_id: 'sys_id of the flow to trigger', inputs: 'Key-value pairs for flow input variables'), covering 100% of parameters. The description only reiterates that inputs are optional, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 that the tool triggers a 'Flow Designer flow' and mentions optional input parameters, which is specific and matches the tool name. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like trigger_agentic_playbook or test_flow, though the resource name helps.

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?

Only mentions a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trigger_agentic_playbook or execute_playbook. No when-not-to-use or scenario context is provided.

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