trigger_pipeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description reinforces this with 'mutating operation that starts a real pipeline run,' which flags that the call has real-world side effects, and it also names the return value (execution reference ID) in the absence of an output schema. It doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, or error behavior, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what it does, then usage, then return value, then mutation warning. Every sentence contributes. The final 'mutating operation' sentence partly restates the annotations, which keeps it from a clean 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly fills the gap by explaining the return (execution reference ID and how to use it). Parameters are fully covered by the schema, and the mutating/complexity profile is disclosed. An agent has everything it needs to call this correctly.

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 100%, so application, pipeline_name, and the JSON parameters object are already documented by the schema. The description adds only 'optional parameters' without syntax or format detail beyond the schema's example. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter meaning.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Trigger a new pipeline execution with optional parameters.' It clearly distinguishes itself from read-only siblings like get_pipeline and list_pipelines, and the domain (Spinnaker pipelines/deployments) is concrete enough that an agent can select it without opening a schema.

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?

'Use this to start a deployment, build, or any configured pipeline workflow' gives clear activation contexts, and it points to get_execution/list_executions for monitoring. It lacks explicit when-not guidance (e.g. use cancel_execution to stop, or don't trigger for read-only inspection), so it stops short of a 5.

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