trigger_flow

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds the WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the flow runs synchronously, returns an execution ID, or what side effects occur. The description goes slightly beyond annotations but lacks richer behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes a key prerequisite. Every word earns its place; no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 tool has no output schema and the description does not explain what happens after triggering (e.g., whether it returns an execution ID or how to retrieve execution status). Given the existence of sibling tools like get_flow_execution, a more complete description would mention the expected return or follow-up. The description covers the basics but leaves operational gaps.

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 covers both parameters with descriptive text (flow_sys_id as 'sys_id of the flow to trigger' and inputs as 'Key-value pairs for flow input variables'). The description's mention of 'optional input parameters' adds minimal semantic value, aligning with the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 action: 'Trigger a Flow Designer flow with optional input parameters.' It identifies the specific resource (Flow Designer flow) and verb (trigger), distinguishing it from siblings like get_flow or list_flows which merely inspect metadata.

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 description includes a prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true') but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as test_flow or mention when to use this instead of other flow-related tools. The usage context is only implied by the action of triggering, without exclusions or alternative guidance.

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