pipeline_update_schedule

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

The description merely restates the mutation and adds no behavioral detail beyond what the annotations already indicate (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, how configuration is applied, whether enabling/disabling is immediate, or what preconditions exist.

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 single-sentence description is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it concise and easy to parse. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing useful context about behavior and parameters.

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 mutation tool with a nested configuration object and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain what fields a schedule update can affect, whether configuration is merged or replaced, how the scheduleId relates to the pipelineId, or what happens after a successful update. An agent could select the tool but would lack key context for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The 'configuration' parameter remains opaque with only 'Updated schedule configuration' and additionalProperties: {}, so the description does not help clarify the expected structure of that nested object.

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 ('Update') and resource ('existing pipeline schedule'), identifying this as a modification operation on a schedule. It distinguishes from pipeline_update (which would modify the pipeline itself) and from pipeline_create_schedule/pipeline_delete_schedule. However, it does not detail which schedule properties can be updated.

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 phrase 'existing pipeline schedule' implies the schedule must already exist and that this is for modification rather than creation or deletion, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over pipeline_create_schedule or pipeline_delete_schedule. No alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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