harness_update

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, such as the ability to pass a URL for auto-extraction and the response including an 'openInHarness' link. With annotations already indicating destructive/write operations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint false), the additional context is valuable and consistent. It no contradiction with 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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by focused usage notes on body format, URL extraction, and response link. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 (9 parameters, 2 required, nested objects) and the presence of a detailed schema and output schema, the description effectively highlights the most critical usage patterns (body handling for pipelines/input sets, URL extraction). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, with the schema and annotations covering the remaining details.

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?

While the schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, the tool description adds meaningful nuance by including 'input sets' in the body guidance (schema mentions only 'pipelines') and recommending YAML string usage for complex definitions. This goes slightly beyond the schema, though most parameter semantics are already well-documented in the schema.

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 'Update an existing Harness resource' with a specific verb and resource type, distinguishing it from sibling tools like harness_create and harness_delete. It also adds context about body handling and URL extraction, which further clarifies its purpose.

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 description provides clear context that this tool updates existing resources, implying it is not for creation. It offers specific guidance for pipelines/input sets on how to pass body (YAML string vs. yamlPipeline/pipeline) and mentions URL auto-extraction. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or edge cases where another tool should be used.

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