pipeline_advance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that force skips exit condition checks and that force=False evaluates them. This adds behavioral context beyond the bare action. However, it does not mention error scenarios (e.g., pipeline not found), side effects, or return behavior, leaving gaps.

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 concise: two sentences plus two bullet-like lines. It is front-loaded with the core action, immediately followed by key behavioral notes. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given that the tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated as present) and 4 parameters fully described in the schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects (force behavior) and the action's purpose. It could be more complete by mentioning what happens if the task_id is invalid or the pipeline isn't active, but those are minor omissions. Overall, it is fairly complete for an action tool.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already states about parameters. For example, the schema already describes target_stage and triggered_by. Thus, the description adds no marginal value for parameter semantics, earning a baseline 3.

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: 'Advance the pipeline to the next (or specified) stage.' It uses a specific verb (Advance) and resource (pipeline), and the mention of 'force' distinguishes it from a plain advance. Sibling tools like pipeline_create and pipeline_status have different purposes, so the differentiation is clear.

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 context for when to use force=True vs force=False, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other sibling tools like loop_advance or pipeline_create. The usage guidance is implicit but lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives.

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