Github Dispatch Workflow

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing client-side validation (inputs beyond 25 are refused before any request is sent) and the return_run_details behavior — that GitHub otherwise answers 204 with no run information. That is genuinely useful behavior the schema and annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loads the action and constraints in two tight sentences. The 'See #503' issue reference is opaque to an agent that cannot read issue trackers and does not earn 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description correctly notes that return_run_details is what makes the response useful. For a 5-parameter mutation with annotation coverage, this leaves little an agent needs missing.

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 coverage is 60%; the description adds that inputs must be keyed by the names the workflow file declares and restates the 25 cap. It does not clarify repo_owner, repo_name, or the integer-vs-filename ambiguity of workflow_id beyond what the schema already says.

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 (starts) and resource (a workflow that declares workflow_dispatch), plus the scoping mechanism (on ref, with inputs). No sibling tool does anything similar, and the precondition 'declares a workflow_dispatch trigger' prevents misfires on non-dispatchable workflows.

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?

A precondition is given (the workflow must declare workflow_dispatch) and a conventions pointer to github_get_skill('pr-management'), but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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