arm_trigger_build

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'triggers a new build' without disclosing side effects, authentication requirements, response format, or that it initiates an asynchronous job. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the endpoint and action. There is no unnecessary verbiage; every word contributes to identifying the tool's function.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description gives only a one-line summary. It fails to mention what response the agent can expect, whether the build triggers asynchronously, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'arm_poll_job_status'. Given the tool's role in a CI pipeline, this context is important.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (coverage 100%), including notes like 'Case-sensitive' and 'Optional extra headers'. The description adds no additional param meaning, so it meets the baseline for high schema 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 ('Triggers a new build') and the resource ('a CI job'), with the HTTP endpoint for precision. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'arm_abort_ci_job' and 'arm_list_ci_jobs' by specifying the trigger action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing its use within the CI workflow.

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