Trigger Schedule Now

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation with potential external effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds only the 'out of band' context, which suggests a manual trigger but does not explain what executing the schedule entails (e.g., whether it runs associated tasks, any side effects on subsequent scheduled runs, or required schedule state).

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It earns its place by stating the core action clearly, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the tool is relatively simple, but the description omits crucial context such as what happens when a schedule is triggered, whether it requires an existing schedule, or what the return value indicates. This is incomplete for a triggering operation, especially given the absence of an 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?

The input schema has a single required parameter, schedule_id, with no description. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention this parameter or its purpose. The agent must rely solely on the parameter name, which is underspecified.

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 'Run' with resource 'a schedule', and the parenthetical '(out of band)' clarifies it executes immediately rather than through normal scheduling. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lyzr_schedule_create, lyzr_schedule_pause, and lyzr_schedule_resume.

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 the use case (trigger a schedule right now) but does not mention when to use it relative to alternatives such as lyzr_schedule_pause or lyzr_schedule_resume. No prerequisites or conditions are stated, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and context.

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