Run Pipeline

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description aligns with these, adding that the operation triggers a new run and returns details. However, it does not disclose potential failures, prerequisites (e.g., pipeline config must exist), or side effects such as rate limits.

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 with a one-line purpose followed by a clear args/returns list. Every sentence is necessary, and the structure is well-organized for quick comprehension.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description lacks critical context for a mutation tool: it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., repository existing, branch having pipeline config), error scenarios, or the scope of impact. This leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaningful explanations for each parameter: repo_slug as 'Repository slug', branch as 'Branch name', and workspace as optional with a default. This adds clarity beyond the property names.

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 tool triggers a new pipeline run on a branch. The verb 'trigger' and resource 'pipeline run' are specific, and the context 'on a branch' distinguishes it from list or get pipeline tools among siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_pipeline_runs or get_pipeline_config. The description simply states what it does without advising on appropriate conditions or excluding other scenarios.

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