circleci_trigger_pipeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action of triggering a pipeline, omitting that this is a mutating operation, potential side effects (e.g., building, costing credits), authentication implications, or return behavior.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Trigger a new...') and presents optional parameters succinctly. No extraneous words or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., pipeline ID, status), error scenarios, or additional contextual constraints like rate limits or required permissions.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no semantic value beyond restating that branch, tag, or parameters are optional, which is already clear from the schema.

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 CircleCI pipeline, with optional parameters for branch, tag, or parameters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like circleci_list_pipelines which are read-only, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage (triggering a pipeline) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., circleci_get_pipeline for status checks). It lacks prerequisites like needing a valid API key and project slug beyond the schema, and no exclusions are given.

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