Trigger a routine immediately, ahead of its scheduled time. This manually fires the routine and records the execution just like a scheduled cron tick.
Fire a Routine immediately, ahead of its schedule. Creates a skill_executions row with trigger_type=scheduled and routine_id set, just like the cron tick would.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals that the tool creates a row in skill_executions, which is a behavioral side-effect beyond the annotations. Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds meaningful context about the mutation.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and including a technical detail. Every word adds value without redundancy.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It could mention that 'id' is the routine ID, but this is implied by the tool name and sibling tools.
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 has one required parameter 'id' with no description. The description does not explain the parameter, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and context. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.
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 tool's purpose: firing a routine immediately, ahead of schedule. It distinguishes itself from other routine-related tools by specifying the action and the effect (creating a skill_executions row like a cron tick).
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 when to use (to trigger a routine ahead of schedule) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools makes the usage clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.