update_pipeline

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, suggesting a non-destructive write. The description adds no new behavioral details such as whether updates are validated, if existing stages are replaced, or if permissions are required. It does not contradict 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 sentence that concisely states the purpose. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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 tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for a minimal viable tool. However, given the complexity of pipeline updates, additional context about validation, side effects, or usage patterns would improve 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 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool updates a pipeline configuration in Spinnaker, specifying the verb 'update' and the resource 'pipeline configuration'. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_pipeline, get_pipeline, or list_pipelines. However, it could add 'existing' to clarify it modifies, not creates.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like save_pipeline or trigger_pipeline. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., pipeline must exist) or scenarios where it should be avoided. Sibling tools suggest similar operations but no differentiation is provided.

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