gh_run_workflow

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) by disclosing that the tool is disabled unless an environment variable is set, and that the workflow must have a specific trigger. This supplements the annotation without contradiction, though it does not detail side effects like creating a run or asynchronous behavior.

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 sentences, tightly focused. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by essential prerequisites and input syntax. 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 mutation tool with an existing output schema, the description covers key prerequisites and input format. It does not explain what happens after the trigger (e.g., returns a run ID) but the output schema likely covers that. Given the tool's moderate complexity and annotations, this description is adequately complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does explain the 'fields' parameter format as key=value pairs, which is critical non-obvious usage. However, it does not describe ref, workflow_id, owner, or repo. While these are somewhat self-explanatory, the description could have added more for ref (e.g., branch/tag name) to fully compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 begins with 'Trigger a workflow dispatch event for a GitHub Actions workflow,' which clearly states the action (trigger) and the resource (workflow dispatch event). This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like gh_list_workflows or gh_get_workflow, and the added detail about requiring an on.workflow_dispatch trigger further clarifies its exact purpose.

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 provides clear usage context: the workflow must support on.workflow_dispatch, and the tool is disabled unless MCP_GH_ALLOW_WRITE_COMMANDS=true. It also explains how to pass inputs via fields. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools (e.g., use gh_get_workflow to verify trigger support), but it gives enough guidance for correct use.

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