Create Pipeline Trigger Token

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the token is shown exactly once and cannot be recovered via list/get/update, which directly informs storage and retry decisions. It stops short of mentioning permission or scope requirements, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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, zero filler, with the critical one-time-visibility warning front-loaded after the core action. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The description effectively covers the return value (the token, visible only once) and its secure-storage implication despite there being no output schema, which is the highest-value disclosure for a credential-creating tool. But for a three-parameter mutation with no schema descriptions, the absence of any parameter or permission context leaves it only minimally complete.

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% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not compensate. Neither 'description' (the only required field), 'expires_at', nor 'project_id' is explained, giving an agent no guidance on token lifetime or project scoping.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('Create a pipeline trigger token') with the target consumer named ('for external systems'). The second sentence implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list/get/update trigger tools by noting they never return the token, so an agent can tell it apart without opening another 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?

Conveys the use case ('for external systems') and rules out retrieval alternatives by stating that list, get, and update never return the token. However, it never explicitly says when to reach for this versus sibling creation tools like gitlab_create_pipeline or how the token is subsequently consumed (e.g., via gitlab_trigger_pipeline), leaving the routing partly implicit.

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