ado_pipeline_run

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

Annotations already declare destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, and the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: this runs remote code, it can deploy resources, user authorization is required, and the call is not automatically retried. The non-retry disclosure is important because the non-idempotent hint means a blind retry could double-queue a deployment.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the 'WRITE:' risk marker, and each sentence carries distinct information (action, blast radius, authorization gate, retry behavior). No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description never indicates what the agent gets back (e.g. a run ID to poll with ado_pipeline_run_get), which matters for a queue-and-watch workflow. The risk profile is thorough, but the silent nested target schema is a meaningful completeness gap.

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% and there are three parameters, including a nested 'target' object with five ambiguous sub-fields (profile, project, repository, repoPath, organization). The description provides no parameter meaning at all, leaving questions like repository vs. repoPath resolution and how refName is validated entirely unanswered.

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 and resource ('Queue a pipeline run') and immediately names the consequence ('executes remote pipeline code and can deploy resources'). This is clearly distinguishable from the read-oriented siblings ado_pipeline_get and ado_pipeline_runs_list without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete gate for invocation ('Obtain explicit user authorization'), which tells the agent both when this is appropriate and what precondition must hold. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or pointing at an alternative tool (e.g. ado_pipeline_run_get to poll status), so it falls short of a 5.

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