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

Adds real behavior beyond annotations: omitted stages are deleted and their deals must be relocated via `removals`, updates are partial, and the caller must be admin or owner. That is substantial context for a mutation tool. One tension: annotations declare destructiveHint=false while the description describes deleting stages and orphaning deals if no `removals` entry is supplied — an agent should treat this as a destructive operation despite the annotation.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the two rules that most affect correctness (whole-list replacement, removal handling). No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

Covers prerequisites, replacement semantics, and the removal/relocation requirement for a 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema. It does not describe the response or what happens when `stages` is omitted entirely beyond the general 'only what you pass changes' rule, which leaves a small gap.

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 only 33% (top-level `name`, `description`, and `stages` carry no schema docs), but nested `stages` sub-properties are well documented in the schema itself. The description compensates usefully for `stages` (whole-list replacement, ordering, id retention) and `removals`, yet adds nothing about the top-level `name`/`description` fields beyond listing them, leaving partial coverage.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource plus the exact mutable fields: 'Change a pipeline's name, description or stages.' It's clearly an in-place mutation, which distinguishes it implicitly from dosai_create_pipeline and dosai_archive_pipeline, though no sibling is named explicitly to help the agent disambiguate.

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?

Gives concrete operational rules: pass `stages` as the whole new list of 3-15, keep an existing stage by id, and use `removals` to say where deals go for omitted stages. It also states the prerequisite 'Admin or owner' and the partial-update contract 'Only what you pass changes.' It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., create vs. archive a pipeline), so it is strong context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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