Run pipeline schedule

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, which already indicate this is a mutating operation with side effects. The description adds 'immediately' to convey urgency but doesn't disclose whether running a schedule could create multiple pipelines, require permissions, or be rate-limited. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond them.

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, concise sentence that clearly communicates the action without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 a simple purpose, but the lack of behavioral context (e.g., what happens after running a schedule, any side effects, expected response) and minimal parameter guidance makes it less complete. The output schema exists but isn't described, so it may partially compensate, but the description alone doesn't fully cover the tool's usage.

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 50%, with only the 'project' parameter having any description (GitLab project ID or full path). The 'pipeline_schedule_id' parameter lacks any description in the schema. The tool description provides no additional parameter context, leaving the agent to infer that the schedule ID is an integer identifier for the schedule to run.

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 ('Run') and the resource ('project pipeline schedule') with the scope ('immediately'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_pipeline_schedules or get_pipeline_schedule by implying execution rather than retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_pipeline or retry_pipeline. The description does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., schedule must exist, be active) or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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