Update pipeline schedule

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

Annotations state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, with no idempotency hint (idempotentHint=false). The description does not clarify mutation behavior: it says 'update' but does not explain what happens to existing schedule parameters (e.g., whether unspecified fields are preserved or cleared), whether the operation is destructive to existing inputs provided in a previous update, or whether partial updates are supported. With an openWorldHint=true, the description should clarify scope, but it fails to add behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is so brief that it lacks substantive content, which slightly reduces the score from 5 to 4.

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 is moderate complexity with 7 parameters, a complex nested 'inputs' array, and an output schema. The description covers none of this: no mention of what parameters can be updated, no explanation of the 'inputs' structure (nested objects with 'destroy' flag for removing), no documentation of the 'cron' format or timezone, and no mention of the output. Annotations do not compensate, so the description is clearly insufficient for an agent to use it effectively.

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 14%, but the schema itself provides some documentation (e.g., 'project' has a description and defaults/notes exist for other fields like 'inputs' has nested structure, 'cron' and 'cron_timezone' are strings). The description adds no parameter-level semantics, so the agent must rely entirely on the schema. Given the low schema coverage, a score of 3 reflects that the description does not help but also does not conflict; the burden is on the schema, which is somewhat incomplete (e.g., no description for 'inputs', 'destroy', 'cron_format').

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 'Update a project pipeline schedule' states the verb (update), the resource (pipeline schedule), and the scope (project). It distinguishes this from related tools like list_pipeline_schedules, get_pipeline_schedule, create_pipeline_schedule, delete_pipeline_schedule, run_pipeline_schedule, and update_pipeline_schedule_variable, but does so only through the tool name; the description itself provides no explicit differentiation. A score of 3 reflects a clear purpose without added depth.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_pipeline_schedule_variable or run_pipeline_schedule. No context is given about prerequisites (e.g., the schedule must already exist, the user must have appropriate permissions), and no alternative tools are mentioned. The usage is only implied by the name and generic description.

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