pipeline.run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real value: it declares the MODELBOUND_API_KEY requirement, the side effect of streaming into skill_pipeline_runs, and the return shape. It omits failure behavior, reversibility, and the significance of override_gates and apply_optimization (dictated only by the schema), leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, each carrying distinct information (what it does, side effect, return, next step, prerequisite) with no waste.

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 7-parameter pipeline trigger with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers auth, side effect, and return values, but says nothing about parameter-driven behavior (stages, targets, gate overrides) or failure modes. Adequate but with visible gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Seven parameters with only 57% schema description coverage, and the description contributes no parameter information at all. Undocumented parameters such as skill_id, changelog, and version_bump get no help from the prose, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Run), the resource (Skill Development Pipeline), and enumerates its stages (Test → Optimize → Production), which lets an agent distinguish it from optimization.run and skill.test. It also names the return shape and the streaming target (skill_pipeline_runs).

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?

Explicitly routes to pipeline.status for progress monitoring, which is useful sibling differentiation. However, it does not state when to prefer this full pipeline over the narrower optimization.run or skill.test alternatives, so usage is clear but incomplete.

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