voice_update_pipeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: the tool fetches current pipeline state to fill missing fields because HA's WS API requires the full set. This is a valuable transparency detail.

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 uses two clear, efficient sentences with no fluff. Every word adds value: purpose and critical behavioral detail.

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 12 parameters and no annotations, the description explains the most important aspect (partial update). It is adequate for understanding core behavior, though additional context like error conditions or relationship to other voice tools could enhance completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. While it explains the overall partial-update behavior, it does not describe individual parameters. The description adds some meaning beyond schema but not per-parameter detail.

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 'Update an existing Assist pipeline,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like voice_create_pipeline and voice_get_pipeline by implying update vs. create/get.

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 explains when to use the tool for updating pipelines and provides critical usage context about the partial update behavior ('Only fields you pass are sent'). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear.

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