actions_run_trigger

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the high-level action. It does not disclose that this will create a new workflow run, require write permissions, or have asynchronous effects. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about side effects or failure modes.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. It is appropriately concise and easy to parse.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, placing a heavy burden on the description. Yet the description does not mention expected behavior on success (e.g., returns a run ID), error conditions, rate limits, or any other contextual details. It is far from complete for an agent to use reliably.

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 60% (ref, inputs, workflow_id have descriptions), while owner and repo lack descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain how inputs relate to workflow_dispatch parameters or what 'ref' refers to in this context, leaving a gap for the undocumented parameters.

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 action ('Trigger') and the resource ('a GitHub Actions workflow run'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like actions_list (which lists runs) and other repository actions.

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: to trigger a workflow run, use this tool. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. There is no mention of when this would be preferred over other workflow-related tools or of any prerequisites.

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