trigger_pipeline

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a mutation via 'trigger'. It says nothing about required permissions, whether the run starts asynchronously, whether triggering is idempotent or can create duplicate runs, or what happens on invalid pipelineId.

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?

A single four-word sentence with zero waste and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient but borders on under-specification for a six-parameter mutation tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

This is a complex mutation with six parameters, nested objects (variables, templateParameters), no annotations, and no output schema. The description explains neither the outcome of triggering (e.g., a created run and its identifier) nor any operational constraints, leaving the definition substantially incomplete relative to its 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and every parameter (pipelineId, branch, projectId, variables, stagesToSkip, templateParameters) is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — for example, it never notes that pipelineId is the sole required field.

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 a specific verb and resource — 'Trigger a pipeline run' — which is clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings such as list_pipelines, get_pipeline, and list_pipeline_runs. It does not, however, explicitly position itself against those siblings or mention what it returns, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_pipeline_runs or get_pipeline_run, no mention of prerequisites (permissions, branch existence, required pipeline state), and no note on when triggering is inappropriate. An agent must infer all of this.

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