shuffle_trigger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals an authorization scope (integrations:shuffle:invoke), governance via Arbiter policy, and ProofLink receipt sealing. It does not detail side effects or errors, but adds meaningful context beyond the basic action.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds only necessary extra context (scope and receipt). No fluff or redundancy.

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, the description covers purpose, auth requirement, policy governance, and receipt generation. It lacks explicit return format or async behavior, but the mention of ProofLink receipt implies the output. No output schema exists, but the tool is simple enough that this is acceptable.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (workflow_id as UUID, body as optional JSON). The description merely restates these concepts without adding new details, so baseline 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 ('Trigger'), the resource ('Shuffle SOAR workflow'), and the key parameters (workflow ID, optional body). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like shuffle_health (health check) and ghl_trigger_workflow (different platform).

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 does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state when to use it over other trigger tools. Usage is implied by the name and purpose, but no exclusions or alternative references are given. The scope requirement is a prerequisite, not usage guidance.

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