trigger_scheduled_job

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

The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED=true requirement, which is useful environmental context. The annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only and not idempotent, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It does not describe side effects or whether a job run is created, but the additional context is on par with baseline expectations.

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?

One concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a necessary prerequisite in parentheses. Every word earns its place and there is no fluff.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke it. It notes the key requirement (WRITE_ENABLED) and the immediate/on-demand nature. The only minor gap is the lack of detail about return values, but this is not essential for a trigger action.

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 provides 100% coverage of the single parameter sys_id with a clear description ('Scheduled job sys_id to trigger'). The tool description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('immediately execute') and the resource ('a scheduled job'), and adds the important qualification 'on-demand' which distinguishes this from scheduled/automatic execution. It differentiates from sibling tools like list_scheduled_jobs or get_scheduled_job.

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 implies the tool is for running scheduled jobs now rather than waiting for the schedule, and it mentions the WRITE_ENABLED=true prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools like trigger_flow or how to identify the correct sys_id.

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