Update Pipeline Trigger Token

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful, non-obvious fact — that the token value is never returned — which prevents an agent from calling it expecting to retrieve the secret. It says nothing about permissions, whether other token attributes are preserved, or why idempotentHint is false for a description-only update.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one non-obvious caveat. No redundant restatement of the title and no filler.

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 small mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and the key return caveat, so an agent could plausibly invoke it. It is incomplete on parameter meaning (notably the nullable project_id) and on what state changes or permissions are required, which matters because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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% across three parameters, so the description must carry the load and largely does not. It clarifies that 'description' is the mutable field, but says nothing about 'trigger_id' (which token identifier) or the nullable 'project_id' (what null implies, e.g. a default project), leaving two of three parameters unexplained.

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 names a specific verb ('Change') and a specific resource and field ('a pipeline trigger token's description'), which is enough to distinguish it from create/delete/get siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings or state what it does not do, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as gitlab_get_pipeline_trigger for reading the token or gitlab_create_pipeline_trigger for creating one. The only usage signal is implied by the word 'Change'.

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