Run pipeline

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming the failure modes (MissingParameterError for missing project_id/ref, ParameterError for invalid params) and the Pipeline model return wrapper, but says nothing about side effects, permissions, or what happens to existing pipelines.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the 'Args: **kwargs' docstring boilerplate is generic and does not match the actual 11-parameter schema, so it adds noise rather than structure.

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 mutation tool with 11 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the definition should explain required inputs, the meaning of ref/variables, and the side effects of triggering a pipeline. It covers only the return wrapper and error cases, leaving the agent under-equipped to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 0% across 11 parameters, so the description carries full burden — yet it only name-drops project_id and ref as examples and never explains what ref means (branch/tag), what variables/data/api_parameters do, or why pagination params exist on a run operation. This leaves most parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Run a pipeline') scoped to a project, which is clear enough to act on. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as gitlab_graphql_ops_create_pipeline or gitlab_run_pipeline_schedule, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the GraphQL create_pipeline variant or run_pipeline_schedule, nor on prerequisites like permissions or branch state. The only conditional content is about error raising, not usage selection.

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