Request a pipeline run

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations: it discloses the financial impact (spends credit balance, charged per unit of work), the mandatory user-consent flow, and the specific authentication scope. This goes well beyond what readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint convey and alerts the agent to critical side effects.

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 four sentences, each carrying essential information: purpose, cost warning, consent requirement, and authentication scope. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the essential context for a non-trivial billing operation: cost, consent, and key scope. It doesn't describe the post-call flow (e.g., whether it returns a run ID, or how to monitor progress), but given the parameters are fully documented and sibling get_pipeline_status exists for monitoring, it is adequately complete for an agent to act safely.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, including the confirm parameter's consent behavior and max_articles as an upper bound. The description reinforces confirm's requirement but adds no new technical detail beyond the schema, earning the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb+resource ('Request a pipeline run') and differentiates it from sibling pipeline read tools (get_pipeline_status, list_pipeline_runs, get_pipeline_queue) by emphasizing it is the only billable operation. This makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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 explicit usage instructions: ask the user before calling, pass confirm:true only after agreement, and requires a scoped secret key (wv_sk_ with pipeline:run scope). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the 'only billable operation' warning effectively distinguishes it from read-only siblings, giving clear context for when to use it.

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