trigger_pipeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions triggering a pipeline run but doesn't describe what happens after triggering (e.g., asynchronous execution, side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or whether this is a destructive/mutative operation). The return info is mentioned but not elaborated.

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 appropriately sized with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more detailed given no output schema.

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does a decent job explaining parameters but lacks behavioral context. For a tool that triggers pipeline runs (likely a mutative/destructive operation), more information about side effects, permissions, or execution behavior would be needed for completeness.

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?

The description adds significant value beyond the 0% schema coverage by explaining all three parameters: 'repo_slug' (repository slug), 'branch' (branch to run on with default), and 'variables' (custom key-value pairs, optional). This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('trigger a pipeline run') and the target ('on a repository'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'stop_pipeline' or 'get_pipeline', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_pipeline_variable' or 'stop_pipeline'. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing considerations, or when not to use it.

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