dispatch_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutating action by 'Trigger', but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or response semantics. The agent is left to infer most behavioral expectations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though somewhat minimal. The double backticks around 'workflow_dispatch' are a minor formatting defect, but the structural efficiency is good.

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 five-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, this description is severely inadequate. It gives no information about how any parameter maps to the requested workflow run, required inputs, or branch targeting. The presence of an output schema does not make up for missing parameter and invocation context.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the five parameters. It does not explain that 'workflow_id' may be a numeric ID or filename, what 'ref' means, or how 'inputs' should be structured. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 verb 'Trigger' and the resource 'workflow run', and specifies the mechanism 'workflow_dispatch' event. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools, but there is no other workflow-triggering sibling, so the purpose is still clear.

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?

The intended use is implied: when an agent needs to manually trigger a workflow run. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites like permissions, and no 'when not to use' context.

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