update_pipeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely new context: the operation overwrites the current config (full replacement, not a merge) and returns a confirmation. There is mild tension with idempotentHint=false, since a full-JSON overwrite behaves idempotently, but the description itself asserts nothing contradictory.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the alternative, then behavior. Every sentence carries information, though the closing 'mutating operation' clause partially restates the readOnlyHint=false annotation.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, what it replaces, how it differs from save_pipeline, and that a confirmation is returned. Only minor detail (failure/permission behavior) is absent, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 both parameters are self-documented and the baseline would be 3. The description earns above baseline by clarifying that pipeline_json is a *full* pipeline definition (replacement semantics rather than a partial patch), which the schema does not convey.

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 and resource ('Update an existing pipeline configuration in Spinnaker') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling save_pipeline. An agent can select between them without opening either 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 an explicit condition ('a pipeline that already exists') and names the alternative with its own condition ('use save_pipeline instead to create a new one'). It also enumerates the modifiable aspects (stages, triggers, parameters), so when-to-use is unambiguous.

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