Update an Assist pipeline

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds substantial non-obvious context: HA's WS API requires the full field set, so the tool first fetches the current pipeline and fills omitted parameters from it, meaning only passed parameters are changed. It also states the return value, but does not mention auth needs or other side effects.

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?

Front-loads the action, then explains the non-obvious fetch/update mechanism, then gives use/not-for and return information. The middle sentence about omitted fields is slightly convoluted and could be tighter, but no sentence is wasted.

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 12-parameter mutation with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, selection criteria, the unusual WS full-set behavior, and the alternative tool. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing; return values are covered by the output schema even though the description also mentions them.

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 schema already documents every optional parameter with 'Omit to keep the current one.' The description reinforces the omission behavior and explains the fetch mechanism, but adds no per-parameter syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Update') and resource ('Assist pipeline'), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling create tool: 'Not for: creating a new pipeline — use voice_create_pipeline.' The WS endpoint name confirms the exact operation being performed.

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?

Explicit 'Use when: changing one or more fields of an existing pipeline' and 'Not for: creating a new pipeline — use voice_create_pipeline.' This provides condition, exclusion, and the exact alternative in two sentences.

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