trigger_pipeline

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

Annotations indicate non-readonly (write operation) and non-destructive, but description does not clarify side effects (e.g., impacts running pipeline, rate limits, or execution limits). Returns execution reference ID but no further behavior details. With annotations providing limited behavioral info, description should disclose more.

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?

Two sentences, short and front-loaded. No waste, but no structure beyond plain sentences. Concise enough.

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 3 simple parameters and no output schema, description covers basic trigger action. Missing context about execution concurrency, cancellation behavior, or required permissions. Adequate but incomplete.

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?

Input schema already describes all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States specific verb 'trigger' and resource 'pipeline execution', mentions optionality of parameters and return of execution reference ID. Provides clear purpose. Does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_pipeline' or 'restart_stage', but the action is distinct enough.

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?

Implies usage for triggering a pipeline, but does not specify when to use this vs. alternatives like 'restart_stage' or 'resume_execution'. No guidance on preconditions (e.g., pipeline must exist) or when not to use.

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