trigger-fleet-schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that triggering creates a deployment immediately, but lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., whether it can override an ongoing deployment, permission requirements, or if it's destructive). The description is minimal and does not go beyond the basic action.

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?

A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. No redundant or filler content. Every word contributes meaning.

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 simple trigger tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough information about the action. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., the schedule must exist) and does not describe the response or error cases, but these are partially compensated by the sibling get-fleet-schedule tool. Overall, it is fairly complete for its simplicity.

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 the single required parameter 'id' described in the schema. The description does not add any additional context about the parameter (e.g., format, where to find the ID). Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter.

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 verb 'trigger', the resource 'fleet schedule', and the outcome 'immediately create a deployment'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create-fleet-schedule (which creates a schedule, not triggers) and update-fleet-schedule (which modifies schedule settings).

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 implies the tool is for manually initiating a deployment from a schedule, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like create-fleet-schedule (for creating a new schedule) or update-fleet-schedule (for modifying an existing one). No when-not-to-use or context is provided.

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