octri_trigger_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the non-blocking async contract and the two follow-up patterns, which is genuinely valuable. However, it says nothing about permissions/auth, failure behavior on invalid language ids, or that this creates a persistent build resource.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return behavior and next steps. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 simple trigger tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential contract: what it queues, that it returns immediately with a build id, and how to follow up. Lacking only permission and error-handling context.

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 67%; languages and project_id already have schema descriptions, and the description's 'one or more languages' reinforces the array's multi-value nature. The version parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a real 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 (queue) and resource (SDK build) with clear scope (one or more languages). It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by naming octri_get_build and octri_wait_for_build as the consumption paths.

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 describes the async workflow: it returns immediately and tells the agent to either poll with octri_get_build or block with octri_wait_for_build, effectively an alternative-selection rule. It does not address when to prefer this over other trigger-like siblings (e.g. octri_retry_build) or any preconditions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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