trigger_dag_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions triggering and returning confirmation (run ID, state), but omits critical details such as idempotency, permission requirements, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting scheduled runs), or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a brief Args/Returns section. Every word adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. The structure is clean and easy to parse.

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 nested objects) and existence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns confirmation'), the description covers the core action. However, it lacks integration with sibling tools (e.g., suggesting get_dag_run_status to monitor the triggered run) and fails to mention prerequisites or errors, making it just adequate.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining dag_id as 'The DAG identifier to trigger.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's title and type. For a single parameter, this is adequate.

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 verb 'Trigger' and the resource 'manual DAG run', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It differentiates from sibling tools like check_failed_dags or list_dags by explicitly indicating a write/action operation.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: to trigger a manual DAG run. However, it provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., if a DAG is already running). This is a minor gap.

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