trigger_evaluation

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world, so the description's added value is auth requirements ('needs restart rights') and the deduplication behavior that 'force' bypasses. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations. It doesn't say whether the call returns immediately or waits on the evaluation, which keeps it from 5.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the permission caveat and force semantics following immediately. Every clause carries information.

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 annotations present and an output schema declared, the description covers the action, the permission requirement, and the key parameter nuance. The main residual ambiguity is what 'soon' concretely means (queued vs. immediate execution) for a tool whose annotations already say it is not idempotent.

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 only 25% (just 'instance'), so the description must carry weight, and it does explain the one non-obvious parameter: 'force re-evaluates even if inputs are unchanged.' project and jobset are self-describing by name and pattern, so the remaining gap is small.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('evaluate a jobset') and clarifies the trigger is asynchronous/deferred ('soon'), which separates it from siblings like restart_build, bump_build, and manage_eval. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer, so it stops short of 5.

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 parenthetical 'needs restart rights on the project' gives a real precondition for use, and the 'force' note hints at the re-evaluation case. But there is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to an alternative (e.g., bump_build vs. restart_build) for triggering work.

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