trigger-repository-dispatch

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says an event is triggered. It does not disclose that the call is fire-and-forget, returns no workflow result, requires appropriate repository permissions, or that it may succeed even if no workflow listens for the event type.

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 a single nine-word sentence with no filler and the key information front-loaded. It is efficiently written, though slightly under-specified; the conciseness itself is not the problem.

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 low-complexity tool, the schema covers parameter semantics well, but the description omits the fire-and-forget behavior and provides no guidance for choosing between this and the sibling workflow-dispatch tool. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps around usage context and async semantics.

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?

The input schema has descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), including a helpful note that event_type must match on.repository_dispatch.types in the workflow file. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Trigger') plus a precise resource ('repository_dispatch event') and states the intended outcome ('to start a workflow'). It is clear about what the tool does, and the event type name distinguishes it from the sibling create-workflow-dispatch, though that differentiation relies on naming rather than explicit contrast.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling create-workflow-dispatch, and it mentions no exclusions or alternative conditions. An agent must infer that this is for workflows listening on 'repository_dispatch' events with no explanation of how that differs from workflow_dispatch.

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