update_pipeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update' and shows PUT, but does not explain whether the update is a full replacement or partial merge, whether stages are replaced as a whole, what side effects occur, or what the response will be. This is a significant gap 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 extremely short and contains no filler, and the HTTP method and path are useful context. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification; there is room for one or two more sentences about update behavior without sacrificing conciseness.

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 seven parameters, nested stages objects, extraBody/extraQuery, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. An agent cannot know whether stages should be fully specified, how extraBody interacts with named fields, or what a successful update returns. Sibling tools like create_pipeline and get_pipeline are not referenced either.

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 description coverage is 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but with high schema coverage a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The remaining undocumented detail, such as the semantics of the required id, is not compensated for by the description.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Update a pipeline.' The HTTP method PUT and path '/pipelines/{id}' reinforce that this acts on an existing pipeline, distinguishing it from create_pipeline and get_pipeline by name. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the purpose is not vague.

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 create_pipeline, get_pipeline, or list_pipelines. The description only repeats the action; it does not mention prerequisites, whether the pipeline must already exist, or when a different sibling would be appropriate.

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