trigger_pipeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it excels: it discloses write permission requirements, wait timeout behavior, failure returned as a status field rather than an error, and timed_out results. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious runtime behavior an agent needs to know.

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 organized into a short purpose line, a clear permission note, and a labeled Args section. Every sentence provides necessary operational detail, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers all essential context: when execution is permitted, what wait does, how failures surface, and how timeouts behave. An agent has everything it needs to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the response.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description manually documents both parameters: pipeline_id as "The pipeline to run" and wait with its blocking behavior, timeout, and result semantics. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions and adds meaning well beyond the raw types.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Trigger a pipeline run (dbt build/run/test)." This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like trigger_transformation and trigger_upload by targeting pipelines specifically.

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 states the write-access prerequisite and that read-only sessions will refuse the call, giving clear contextual guidance for when the tool can be used. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or contrast them, but the resource-focused wording makes the intended use clear.

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