run_worker_now

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only adds 'Logged as MANUAL trigger type,' which gives a minor behavioral detail but fails to disclose potential side effects such as whether the scheduled run will still occur, concurrency handling, permission requirements, or return behavior.

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 sentence with the action verb first, no redundant wording, and no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose and a single behavioral note.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It doesn't indicate whether the firing is synchronous or asynchronous, what the function returns (e.g., a run ID, status), or error conditions. For a triggering action, this leaves critical operational context 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not add any meaning beyond the parameter name 'worker_id'—no explanation of how to identify the worker, no source for the ID, no format examples. The sole parameter is obvious from context, but the description doesn't enhance the schema.

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 ('fire') and a clear resource ('worker') with an explicit scope ('immediately outside its schedule'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pause_worker, delete_worker, and run_chain_now by focusing on immediate manual execution.

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 phrase 'outside its schedule' clearly indicates the intended use case: triggering a worker manually outside its normal schedule. There is no competing sibling tool for running a worker, so no explicit alternatives are needed, but the context is well implied.

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