update_pipeline

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so 'Safe to repeat' is largely redundant. However, the description adds genuinely new behavioral context with 'Clears the pipelines cache' and 'Returns the updated pipeline,' disclosing a side effect and return behavior the annotations do not cover.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the side effect and the alternative. Every sentence carries information, though 'Safe to repeat' restates idempotentHint and could be trimmed.

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 tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and a stated return value, the description is nearly complete. No output schema exists, so restating 'Returns the updated pipeline' is useful, and the cache-clearing side effect is disclosed.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, both parameters are already documented (including the provenance note for pipeline_id). The description reinforces that name is the only mutable field, but adds no format or syntactic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 and resource (rename an existing pipeline) and immediately bounds the scope: 'Only the name can be changed with this tool.' It also names the sibling that handles the other mutation case, so an agent can distinguish it from update_stage without reading 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?

Explicitly routes stage changes to update_stage, which is clear alternative guidance. It does not spell out when-not beyond that single case (e.g. creating vs updating), but the rename-only scope makes the boundary obvious.

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