Play Pipeline Schedule

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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds two non-obvious behavioral facts: next_run_at is left untouched, and GitLab applies a per-schedule rate limit — both directly relevant to whether an agent should retry or repeat the call.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the key side-effect constraint (next_run_at unchanged) front-loaded before the rate-limit caveat.

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 tool is conceptually simple and annotations cover the mutation safety profile, but with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the definition leaves both parameters and the return value (e.g., the triggered pipeline) undocumented. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent constructing the call.

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% for two parameters, so the description must carry the burden, and it says nothing about pipeline_schedule_id or the optional nullable project_id. An agent gets no hint that project_id may be needed to disambiguate the schedule or how the ID should be formatted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Run a pipeline schedule now") and adds a scope qualifier that separates it from mutation siblings like gitlab_update_pipeline_schedule: next_run_at is preserved. It does not explicitly name the neighboring play/trigger tools, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

"Run a pipeline schedule now without changing next_run_at" implies the situation to use it (a one-off immediate run that should not disturb the cron), but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for cases where the agent should instead trigger a normal pipeline or update the schedule.

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