trigger_schedule

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the trigger does not alter the schedule's regular cron timing and that workflow_id is optional ('if one was created'), adding valuable behavioral context beyond the basic operation. It lacks some edge-case details, but the main behavioral traits are covered.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear intro sentence, a valuable clarifying caveat, and labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence provides useful information, with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 simple two-parameter trigger tool, the description covers the essential aspects: action, parameters, and return values. It does not address potential edge cases (e.g., error behavior when schedule is paused) but remains reasonably complete given the scope and absence of annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does so by listing both parameters with clear descriptions: 'Name of the DBOS application' and 'Name of the schedule to trigger'. This provides the meaning needed to populate the arguments, although it adds no extra nuance like format or examples.

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 specifies the action: 'Manually trigger a schedule to run its workflow immediately.' This identifies the verb (trigger), resource (schedule), and outcome (run workflow), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like pause_schedule or list_schedules.

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 it (for immediate manual runs) and includes a key caveat that it does not affect cron timing. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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