trigger_flow

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, indicating it's a non-read-only operation with side effects. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, which aligns with the mutation nature. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like return values or error handling beyond what annotations imply.

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 that is concise and front-loaded with the main action. Every word is necessary and there is no redundant 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and two parameters, the description provides the essential purpose and a key prerequisite but lacks details on expected behavior (e.g., what triggers, how to handle errors, return format). Given the simplicity of the tool and the sibling context, it is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description merely states 'optional input parameters', which does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 Flow Designer flow with optional input parameters', which specifies the action (trigger) and the resource (Flow Designer flow). It also mentions a required condition (WRITE_ENABLED=true), providing additional clarity. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_flow or list_flow_executions.

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 mentions a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) but does not explain when to use this tool over alternatives like test_flow or publish_flow. No explicit guidance on when-not-to-use or typical usage scenarios.

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