dispatch_workflow

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds context that workflow inputs are sent via stdin and not returned/logged - useful behavioral disclosure beyond annotations. It doesn't detail what 'dispatch' triggers side-effect-wise beyond the annotation, but the stdin/logging note adds genuine value.

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?

Two sentences deliver maximum value per word, state the core action, the scope constraint, and a notable behavioral side-effect. No wasted phrasing.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with destructiveHint=true and no output schema, the description could do more. It covers the dispatch mechanism and the stdin/audit-log behavior, but leaves parameter meaning mostly to the schema, which itself is sparse at 17% coverage.

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 17% (only 'repository' has a description: 'Repository in owner/name format'). The description mentions inputs but doesn't clarify semantics of account, workflow, ref, or hostname parameters, so it does little to compensate for the low structured coverage.

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+resource combination: 'Dispatch an active GitHub Actions workflow in an allowed repository.' It clearly states the action and scope, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like run_gh and update_release by focusing specifically on workflow dispatch.

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 notes inputs go through stdin and aren't logged, which is a meaningful behavioral clue about why you'd choose this path. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, though the sibling set makes it contextually clear this is the dispatch-specific tool.

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