trigger_pipeline

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Trigger a pipeline run' without mentioning side effects, permissions, expected execution time, or error scenarios. This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand behavior.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise but suffers from under-specification. It is not front-loaded with key details and fails to earn its place by lacking substance beyond the tool name.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, success/failure indications, and any operational context necessary for correct use.

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 covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-level insight beyond what the schema provides, so it meets baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 'Trigger a pipeline run' clearly states the action and resource, using a specific verb. It is unambiguous but does not differentiate from related sibling tools like 'pipeline_timeline' or 'get_pipeline_run', which could be clarified.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to trigger vs list runs). No context about prerequisites or ideal scenarios is provided.

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