trigger_agent_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the agent runs asynchronously, which is a key behavioral trait, and that results are available after a few minutes via other tools. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, rate limits, or side effects of triggering multiple runs. For a tool with no annotations, this is adequate but could be improved.

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 three concise sentences: first introduces the action and agent types, second states the configuration prerequisite, third explains async behavior and result retrieval. There is no redundant information or wordiness; every sentence adds necessary context.

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 trigger tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers all key aspects: what the tool does, which agents it triggers, the environment requirement, the async nature, and how to obtain results. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool correctly and know what to expect.

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 2 parameters and 50% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value: it explains the meaning of each agent enum value ('watchdog' for data quality audit, etc.) and the reason parameter purpose ('brief explanation of why this run is being triggered manually'). The schema only documents the reason parameter, so the description compensates well by providing context for both parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Trigger an on-demand run of one of the autonomous agents'. It lists the three specific agents (watchdog, analyst, operator) with their responsibilities, distinguishing this trigger tool from sibling tools like get_attribution_run_history or get_watchdog_alerts that are purely retrieval tools.

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 specifies when to use the tool (on-demand run) and provides context: the agent runs asynchronously, requiring follow-up with get_attribution_run_history or get_watchdog_alerts to check results. It also mentions the environment variable prerequisite (PAID_MEDIA_AGENT_URL). While it doesn't explicitly list when NOT to use it or alternative direct tools, the guidance is clear enough for an agent to understand the context.

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