ci_trigger_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the build uses pushed content at ref (not local state), returns a run id (implying asynchronous execution), and names the secret dependencies for certain configurations. It omits side effects like CI consumption but is not misleading.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the core behavior, the source of truth, the return value, and the key conditional requirements are all conveyed. The most important fact 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?

For an all-optional-parameter trigger tool, the description covers the critical inputs and return value, and sibling tools like ci_list_runs/ci_get_logs implicitly cover monitoring. But with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, it leaves several parameters and the async lifecycle only partially specified.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of ref and ties signing secrets to build_type/testflight, but repo, build_name, build_number, project_path, and export_method are left to name/enum inference only.

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 a specific action ('Start an iOS build on GitHub Actions') and the resource it affects. It is distinct from the local mac_build sibling by specifying GitHub Actions, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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?

It gives useful context: the build is based on the pushed ref, and signed-ipa/testflight have secret prerequisites. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as mac_build or ci_generate_workflow, nor does it provide exclusions.

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