trigger_run

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses asynchronous execution (returns immediately with tracking identifiers), required identifier, optional parameters, and auto-detection of impl. It sets proper expectations for subsequent polling.

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?

Well-structured with a one-sentence summary followed by logical paragraphs. Each sentence adds value; no fluff. Args section clearly maps to parameters.

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?

Covers prerequisites (list_deployments), async nature, how to retrieve results, parameter defaults, and auto-detection. Output schema exists so return format need not be explained. Complete for a tool with moderate complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, but description adds example values for identifier (e.g., 'myproject.test.staging.TrainFlow'), explains parameters as optional key-value overrides, and notes impl auto-detection. This goes well beyond the bare type information in 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?

Description clearly states action (trigger a new run), specific resource (deployed Metaflow flow), and differentiates from sibling tools like list_deployments and get_run. It also helps with prerequisites by mentioning list_deployments to discover identifiers.

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?

Description explains when to use (for deployed flows) and provides explicit references to companion tools (list_deployments, get_triggered_run_status, get_run). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but context is sufficient.

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