trigger_dag_run

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral details beyond the basic action. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or the impact on the DAG state, which is a gap for a write operation.

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 sentence with no fluff, front-loaded with the action verb. It is concise but could include additional useful context without losing brevity.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters and an output schema, the description offers no extra context about typical usage, error scenarios, or integration hints. It is too minimal for a write operation of this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already explains all parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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 'Trigger a new run of a DAG' uses a specific verb ('Trigger') and resource ('a new run of a DAG'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, inspect, or manage DAG states.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The context is implied: use this to start a DAG run. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, which is adequate but not helpful for an agent choosing between similar actions.

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