Trigger Workflow Tool

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key semantics: this creates a brand-new run rather than re-running an existing one, and it will fail if the target workflow lacks a workflow_dispatch trigger. It does not mention required token permissions/scopes or any rate-limit behavior, which is the remaining gap for a mutating trigger operation.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the sibling comparison plus precondition follow in priority order.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the action, the alternative, and the dispatch precondition. It is close to complete; only auth/permission requirements are unstated for this mutating call.

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%, so repo, workflow_id, ref, owner and inputs are already documented, including defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema (e.g. accepted input value types or ref format), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (trigger) and resource (a fresh GitHub Actions run) plus the exact mechanism (workflow_dispatch event). It explicitly contrasts itself with rerun_workflow_run_tool, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ("force a new build"), names the alternative (rerun_workflow_run_tool), and states the condition that selects this tool over that one (the 30-day rejection on re-runs). It also states the precondition that gates success: the workflow must declare an on: workflow_dispatch trigger.

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