update_pipeline_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the partial-update behavior ('Send only fields to change'), but doesn't mention what happens to omitted fields, authorization requirements, or whether the pipeline is affected during the update. This is a minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 with two clauses. It front-loads the verb 'Modify' and includes the key usage instruction. 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the return value, the effect on the pipeline, or the purpose of the extra field. It is adequate only for a very simple mutation tool, which this is not.

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 very low (17%). The description lists some field names (name, schedule, query mode, auto-mapping) but omits the required pipeline_id and provides no detail on schedule structure or query_mode allowed values. The 'extra' field is mentioned only in the schema, not the description. It adds some meaning but leaves critical gaps.

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 modifies pipeline-level config and lists the specific fields (name, schedule, query mode, auto-mapping). It distinguishes from siblings like update_source_config by specifying 'pipeline-level', and from create/enable/disable tools by using 'modify'.

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 instruction 'Send only fields to change' gives clear partial-update guidance and implies the tool is for modifying existing pipelines rather than creating or enabling/disabling. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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