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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses partial update semantics ('only the fields you send change'), the required permission (crm:write), and error behavior (404 for foreign/missing id). This is strong for a mutation tool, though it does not mention the return value or whether it is idempotent.

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, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every word 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 covers the key aspects an agent needs: what the tool does, permission requirements, error handling, and partial update semantics. For a simple update with two required IDs and two optional fields, this is sufficient. It does not mention return format, but no output schema is present, and the description does not promise one.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that only sent fields are updated, which gives meaning to the optional name and stages parameters. It does not elaborate on stages format beyond what the schema already states, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 verb ('Updates') and the resource ('one pipeline in the tenant CRM'), and specifies partial update behavior. It distinguishes itself from sibling create/delete/get/list tools by focusing on updating an existing pipeline.

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 when to use it (updating an existing pipeline) and states a prerequisite (crm:write permission). It does not explicitly name alternatives like the create tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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