run_trigger

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses immediate execution and bypassing of conditions. It does not mention permission requirements, potential errors, or idempotency, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then variant and usage flow. No redundant information; each sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage flow, and a conditional requirement. It lacks details on synchronous/asynchronous behavior and error handling, but is adequate for a trigger-fire action without output schema.

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 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by clarifying the conditional requirement for workflowName under Standard SKU and suggesting use of get_workflow_triggers for triggerName. This enhances parameter understanding beyond 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 clearly states the tool manually fires a trigger to start a run, bypassing schedules. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying immediate execution and providing a usage flow with get_workflow_triggers and list_run_history.

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?

It provides clear usage context: workflowName is required for Standard SKU, and suggests using get_workflow_triggers first. It falls short of explicitly stating when not to use the tool or comparing to alternatives like cancel_run.

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