Workflows: trigger

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the side-effect profile is partly covered. The description adds only the word "manually"; it says nothing about whether execution is synchronous or async, whether a job id is returned, cost/rate implications, or the conditional entity requirement noted in the schema.

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 single short sentence is front-loaded with the verb and contains no filler, which is good. But four words is undersized for a four-parameter, open-world mutation tool, so the terseness reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

For a non-read-only, open-world trigger operation with no output schema, the description should explain the minimum an agent needs before calling: when triggering is valid, what an entity value should be, and what the caller receives back. All of that is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents id, entity, payload, and entity_id, including the Manual-trigger conditional for entity. The description adds no syntax, format, or conditional detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 gives a specific verb+resource (trigger a workflow) and the qualifier "manually" distinguishes manual invocation from event- or schedule-driven runs, which is information beyond the title. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings such as workflows_enable, workflows_disable, or workflows_create, and reads partly as a restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the many workflows_* siblings. An agent is not told how to discover an eligible workflow, whether the workflow must be enabled or Manual-trigger type before this call, or what happens after triggering.

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