cicd_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a mutation (commit+push) that returns immediately and reports asynchronously, but says nothing about which files are staged, the target branch, push-conflict behavior, required auth, or what the immediate response contains.

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 short sentences with the primary action and the non-blocking contract front-loaded. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded.

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 5-parameter async mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical contract (fire-and-forget, results via cicd_events). The remaining gap is operational: parameter semantics and failure handling are not addressed.

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 60%, and the description adds no meaning for any parameter — dir, repo, message, kind, and deadline_minutes are never mentioned. Two of five parameters (kind's enum, deadline_minutes' default) are entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the definition does not compensate for the gap.

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 names concrete actions (commit, push, register a CI/CD watch) and the resource (working dir), so the agent knows exactly what happens. It differentiates against the polling path by naming cicd_events, but does not clarify its relationship to the git_commit/git_push siblings, which overlap with its first clause.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Do not block on the run — continue development', plus the alternative for results ('completion/failure arrives via cicd_events'). It stops short of saying when to pick kind=deploy over ci or how deadline_minutes should influence the choice.

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