alter_pipeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the requirement for a full statement and that alterable clauses are source-specific, which is valuable. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, effects on a running pipeline, or the destructive potential of resetting offsets.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a short use-case expansion, and a clear Args block. Every sentence earns its place; there is no repetition 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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential usage: what SQL to supply, what the database parameter does, and why a full statement is needed. It lacks some safety/permission context, but the core calling contract is complete.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by defining alter_pipeline_sql as 'The full ALTER PIPELINE ... statement' and explaining that database defaults to the connection's configured database. This adds meaning beyond the bare property names and types.

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 verb 'Alter' and the resource 'existing pipeline', and specifies that it operates from a full ALTER PIPELINE statement. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_pipeline and drop_pipeline by mentioning it changes connection strings/credentials or resets offsets.

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 gives concrete use cases ('change the connection string/credentials or reset offsets') and explains why a full statement is required, referencing create_pipeline for the same rationale. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, but the common-use framing provides clear guidance.

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