trigger_pipeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden. It discloses the 'wait' parameter's blocking behavior up to 120s and the need for write access, but lacks details on error behavior, idempotency, or consequences of repeated triggers.

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?

Extremely concise—three sentences plus a brief args list. The main action is front-loaded ('Trigger a pipeline run') with no redundant or verbose content. Every sentence earns its place.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior but omits aspects like rate limits, idempotency, or how to interpret the result.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description effectively explains both parameters: pipeline_id is 'The pipeline to run' and wait is 'If true, block until the run completes (up to 120s).' This adds meaning beyond just type and name.

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 clearly states the action ('Trigger a pipeline run') and specifies it pertains to dbt operations (build/run/test). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_pipelines' and 'get_run' by focusing on initiating executions rather than listing or retrieving.

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?

Includes a prerequisite ('Requires --allow-write') but does not explain when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'trigger_upload' or scheduled runs). No explicit guidance on context where this is preferred.

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