ci_build_runs_create_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that the operation is a POST and where the request envelope is defined; it says nothing about authentication, side effects, whether the build run starts immediately, or what is returned. This is a thin disclosure for an unannotated mutation tool.

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 text is short but not concise: 'POST /v1/ciBuildRuns (POST /v1/ciBuildRuns)' repeats the identical endpoint in parentheses, which is pure waste. Only the final clause about the request body schema carries any information.

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 nested-body creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It omits what a build run represents, what the caller must supply beyond 'see the schema', and any note about the asynchronous nature implied by the sibling ci_build_run_wait tool.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the body. The description adds marginal value by naming the exact OpenAPI component (CiBuildRunCreateRequest) and noting the JSON:API envelope, but gives no field-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name: 'POST /v1/ciBuildRuns' mirrors ci_build_runs_create_instance. It never states in plain language what a CI build run is or that this triggers a build, so it is tautological rather than explanatory, and it does not differentiate from sibling CI tools like ci_workflows_create_instance or ci_products_create_instance.

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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no indication of which CI product/workflow context is required to create a build run. The only pointer is to the OpenAPI request schema, which is not usage guidance.

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