run_trigger

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

Annotations show destructiveHint: false and idempotentHint: false, but the description adds nothing beyond stating the action. There is no mention of side effects, outcome, or whether execution can be repeated safely. With no output schema visible, the agent lacks 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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key usage notes without losing 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?

Given the tool executes a trigger (likely with side effects), the description is too minimal. It does not explain what happens upon execution, error conditions, or the role of the output schema. Sibling tools exist but no differentiation is provided.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides no explanation for the sole parameter 'trigger_id', such as its format, source, or how to obtain it. This leaves the agent guessing.

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 (execute) and the resource (trigger), and specifies 'immediately, outside its schedule'. This distinguishes it from creating or updating triggers, and makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like create_trigger or update_trigger_status. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned (e.g., trigger must exist, be active). The description only implies it's for unscheduled execution.

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