trigger_scheduled_job

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED condition but does not disclose execution behavior (async/sync, return value, logging, cancellation). Some gaps remain beyond annotations.

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?

Single-sentence description, no fluff, directly states action and precondition. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 annotations and a simple parameter, the description lacks context about execution results, potential side effects, or how it compares to other execution tools. For a non-trivial operation, this is insufficiently complete.

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 a clear description for sys_id. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, meeting baseline for high coverage.

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 the action (execute) and resource (scheduled job) with an immediate on-demand trigger. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_scheduled_job, update_scheduled_job, get_scheduled_job, list_scheduled_jobs by focusing on execution.

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 includes a precondition (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true) but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like trigger_flow or execute_background_script. No explicit when-not-to-use or comparative context with other execution tools.

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