Play Pipeline Job

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating action (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as prerequisites or effects of playing a job.

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 very short (two words), but lacks necessary detail. While concise, it sacrifices clarity and completeness, making it minimally acceptable.

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 is severely incomplete given the tool's complexity. It omits required job state, parameter explanations, return values, and any error handling context, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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 the description does not mention any parameters. It provides no meaning beyond the schema itself for job_id or project_id, leaving the agent without guidance on their purpose or format.

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 'Play a manual job.' uses a specific verb ('play') that is standard in GitLab CI/CD for executing manual jobs, making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like retry and cancel, but could be more explicit about the context.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that the job must be in a manual state or compare with similar tools like retry_pipeline_job or cancel_pipeline_job.

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