trigger_workflow_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool starts a brand-new run regardless of when the workflow last ran and that the workflow must declare a workflow_dispatch trigger. However, it does not mention potential side effects like cost, rate limits, or error handling if the prerequisite is not met. Still, it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the primary action, then contrasts with the alternative, and closes with the prerequisite. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists and the input schema fully covers parameters, the description provides the essential use-case differentiation, the prerequisite, and enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke it. It could mention failure modes (e.g., if workflow lacks the trigger), but this is not critical given the schema and the explicit prerequisite statement.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on individual parameters but implies that the workflow_id must correspond to a workflow with a workflow_dispatch trigger. It adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 states a specific verb (trigger) and resource (fresh GitHub Actions run) via the workflow_dispatch event, and explicitly contrasts with the sibling rerun_workflow_run_tool to prevent confusion. It is clear and distinguishes from alternatives.

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 explicitly contrasts with rerun_workflow_run_tool, explaining when to use this tool (for a new run regardless of last run time) versus re-running an existing run (which is limited to 30 days). It also states the prerequisite that the target workflow must have an on: workflow_dispatch trigger, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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