airflow_trigger_dag

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds the return format and error handling details. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., creating a run even if another is active) or authorization needs beyond what annotations imply.

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 well-structured with a lead sentence, a parameter list, and return/error details. It is slightly lengthy but each section adds value. Front-loading the main action is effective.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, mutual exclusivity, output schema exists), the description covers the essential information: how to specify the DAG and instance, what configuration and notes can be provided, and the expected returns and errors. No major gaps.

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 fully explain parameters. It provides clear descriptions for all 7 parameters, including mutual exclusivity between 'instance' and 'ui_url', the meaning of 'conf' as a dict or JSON string, and the optional nature of most fields. This adds significant value over the schema alone.

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 a DAG run') and the resource ('DAG run with optional configuration'). Among sibling tools like 'airflow_get_dag_run', 'airflow_list_dags', etc., this uniquely describes a mutation that initiates a run, making the purpose distinct.

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 implies usage for starting a new DAG run, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'airflow_get_dag_run' (for retrieving an existing run) or other lifecycle tools. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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