Run pipeline

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description adds significant context: it consumes build minutes, can deploy, and requires a specific OAuth scope. It also warns about the need for user confirmation for custom pipelines. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and prerequisites, which is exactly what the dimension rewards.

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 compact yet information-dense: it front-loads the core purpose, then explains defaults, then warns about side effects and required scope. Every sentence earns its place, with no room for fluff. The three-sentence structure is well-organized and easy to parse.

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 six parameters, all documented in the schema, and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral points: what it does, when to use it, what to watch out for (build minutes, deployments, user confirmation), and a concrete prerequisite (OAuth scope). An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and safely without further inference.

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 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description repeats some key semantics (e.g., branch defaults to current git branch, commit pins to SHA) and mentions custom_pipeline, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema descriptions already state. Since the schema carries the load, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds marginal value.

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 (start a Bitbucket pipeline) and specifies two distinct modes: re-running a branch build or executing a definition from the custom section of bitbucket-pipelines.yml. This is a specific verb+resource with enough detail to distinguish it from the sibling tools (e.g., list_pipelines, get_pipeline_step_log) without needing to inspect each one.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool and when to exercise caution: it warns to confirm with the user before running a custom pipeline not selected together, and it states the required OAuth scope (pipeline:write) plus a rerun of setup if needed. It also clarifies the default behavior for branch and commit, showing how to control the build target. This level of context is ample for an agent to make the correct call.

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