update_pipeline

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: adding tables may trigger snapshots, removing tables stops their replication, and concurrent lifecycle changes should be avoided. It does not address reversibility, which update fields can be left unset, or auth/permission needs.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by preconditions then cautions. Every sentence adds distinct information with no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with an output schema present, the description adequately covers scope, preconditions, and side effects. The notable omission is whether omitted fields are left unchanged (partial vs. full update) and the role of the required 'name' argument, which an agent needs to call it safely.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It names the main field groups (batch size, idle timeout, snapshot settings, table mappings), partially compensating for the undocumented nested CDCUpdate properties. However, it never explains the required 'name' parameter or partial-update semantics for the nested object, so meaningful gaps remain.

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 (Modify) and resource scope (CDC batch size, idle timeout, snapshot settings, table mappings), which immediately separates it from siblings like create_pipeline, pause_pipeline, or resume_pipeline. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 clear preconditions ('Requires running or paused state') and cautions about side effects and concurrency ('avoid concurrent lifecycle changes'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not name an alternative (e.g., pause_pipeline first, or validate_pipeline before applying) or a when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of a 5.

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