disable_pipeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the pipeline is 'running,' which implies a precondition, but it does not reveal what happens when the tool is invoked, whether the action is reversible, what occurs to in-flight runs, or what errors may arise. No side effects or state changes are described beyond the action itself.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and adds a clarifying synonym. There is no redundant or unnecessary wording, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word earns its place.

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 one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be contextually complete. It lacks usage guidance, behavioral effects, prerequisites, error conditions, and a distinction from sibling tools. These gaps could lead an agent to misuse the tool or fail to handle edge cases.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter, and the tool description does not mention pipeline_id at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, and the schema defines the type union (integer or string), but the description provides no guidance on how to obtain the pipeline ID or any constraints beyond the schema. The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter information.

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 action ('Disable') and the target ('a running pipeline') with a clarifying synonym ('pause'). It is specific enough to be understood independently, and it is implicitly the opposite of the sibling enable_pipeline. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other pipeline management tools like update_pipeline_config.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used to temporarily pause a pipeline, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the pipeline must be running) or contrast with enable_pipeline or update_pipeline_config. The description simply states the action without usage context.

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