trigger_cde_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action ('Trigger'). It does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, whether the run is asynchronous, or what happens if the job is already running. This is a mutating operation that needs more transparency.

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, grammatically correct sentence with no filler, and the verb is front-loaded. However, it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and mutation side effects, so conciseness borders on being too terse.

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 mutating trigger tool with no annotations and four parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or parameter relationships, and the presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing usage and behavioral context.

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%, and the description names no parameters. The required job_name and optional cde_user, cde_password, and cde_endpoint_url are not explained beyond their titles, leaving the agent without semantic guidance for populating them.

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 uses a specific verb ('Trigger') and identifies the resource ('a manual CDE job run'), making the core action clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_cde_jobs or describe_cde_job, though it could be more explicit about what 'manual' implies.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_cde_job_run_status or diagnose_cde_connectivity. There is no mention of prerequisites, scheduling context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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