trigger_dag_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. While 'trigger' implies mutation, it fails to specify if the call waits for completion, what happens if the DAG is paused, potential failure modes, or required IAM permissions. The Returns section mentions output format but output schema exists separately.

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?

Uses structured Args/Returns sections which aids readability, but the Returns section is redundant given the output schema exists. The opening sentence 'Trigger a new DAG run' is appropriately concise but minimal given the lack of behavioral annotations.

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 output schema present, the description appropriately avoids detailing return values (though it repeats them). However, for a 5-parameter execution tool with zero annotations, it lacks critical operational context: side effects, prerequisites, and execution semantics that would guide safe invocation.

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%, requiring the description to compensate fully. The Args section documents all 5 parameters, including helpful details like dag_run_id auto-generation behavior and optional flags. However, 'conf' lacks detail on expected JSON structure beyond 'Configuration JSON'.

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 'Trigger a new DAG run' with specific verb (trigger) and resource (DAG run). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_dag_run (retrieve existing) and list_dag_runs (list multiple), though it could explicitly clarify this initiates execution versus monitoring.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., DAG must exist), or preconditions to check (e.g., checking DAG is not paused via get_dag). No mention of synchronous vs asynchronous behavior or polling strategies.

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