trigger_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action itself. It does not mention side effects (e.g., creating a workflow run), required permissions, authentication requirements, or potential errors like invalid refs or non-existent workflows. For a mutating tool, this is insufficient.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the main purpose. It is concise and well-structured, though it would benefit from additional essential details; however, conciseness itself is strong.

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 tool with 5 parameters (4 required), a nested object, and no annotations or output schema, this description is critically incomplete. It does not explain the input parameters, expected behavior, or any contextual details needed for correct usage, going far beyond simple under-specification.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It fails to do so: it offers no insight into the meaning of 'ref', 'workflow_id', 'owner', 'repo', or 'inputs'. The agent is left to infer everything from parameter names alone.

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 uses a specific verb, 'trigger', and a clear resource, 'a GitHub Actions workflow', making the core purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_workflows and list_workflow_runs by focusing on the action of triggering, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools for comparison.

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 vs. alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like first locating the workflow_id with list_workflows. The usage is only implied by the verb 'trigger', but there is no explicit context or exclusion of similar operations.

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