trmnl_pipeline_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: dry-run default, enabled-state and interval gating, backoff, duplicate detection, a cross-process lock, and the surprising caveat that external POST sources can have effects even in dry runs. That caveat is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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?

Three dense sentences with the main action front-loaded, followed by the default, then the caveats. Every sentence carries distinct operational information and there is no filler.

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 complex execution tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description does well on runtime behavior and safety caveats but leaves the meaning of 'id' and 'force' unstated. An agent still lacks enough parameter-level detail to invoke it confidently in non-default scenarios.

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%, so the description must carry the burden. It explains that dryRun defaults to true and implies dryRun=false triggers publishing, but it never explains the required 'id' parameter or what 'force' changes, leaving two of three parameters semantically undocumented.

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 specific operations — fetch, project, size-check, optionally publish — applied to pipeline data, which is far more specific than the tool name alone. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like trmnl_pipeline_enable or trmnl_projection_test, but an agent can infer this is the execution tool.

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 only usage-relevant statement is 'dryRun defaults true', which tells the agent the default mode but not when to choose this tool over trmnl_projection_test or trmnl_pipeline_read. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative-naming guidance, leaving selection largely implied by the tool name.

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