Dispatch workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write that reaches outside the local context. The description adds the platform-version requirement, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about what the trigger does to state, whether it is idempotent, or what it returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the key action leads. It is arguably too terse for a five-parameter mutation tool, but there is no waste to trim.

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 non-destructive write with a nested object parameter, no output schema, and 60% schema coverage, the description is materially incomplete. It omits what 'ref' should be (branch/tag/sha), how the freed-form 'inputs' map is interpreted, and what a successful dispatch returns or how to observe the resulting run.

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 only 60%: 'ref' and the nested 'inputs' object carry no schema descriptions, and 'inputs' is a complex propertyNames/additionalProperties:string map whose semantics are entirely unstated. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so the most ambiguous inputs an agent must supply are left undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb ('Trigger') and resource ('workflow_dispatch run'), plus a platform/version qualifier. An agent can distinguish it from read-oriented siblings like list_workflows or list_action_tasks, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. the ref must exist, the workflow must declare workflow_dispatch), and no routing advice relative to nearby tools. The version note ('Forgejo 11+/Gitea 1.24+') is a compatibility constraint, not usage guidance.

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