update_openpipeline_configuration

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a WRITE operation, required flag, and that the entire configuration is replaced. This is sufficient for a mutation tool, though it does not detail error cases or idempotency.

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 sentences, no filler. Each sentence adds essential information: purpose and requirement, then workflow and behavior. Front-loaded with key info.

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 complexity (nested object, update with full replacement) and no output schema, the description covers the main points: what it does, prerequisites, and the fetch-modify workflow. Could mention what happens on failure or invalid input, but overall 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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by providing examples for 'id' and clarifying that 'configuration' is a full replacement object typically fetched and modified, which goes beyond 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 'Replace the full OpenPipeline configuration' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by name and by referencing get_openpipeline_configuration as the fetch step.

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?

Provides a clear workflow: fetch current config with get_openpipeline_configuration, modify, then PUT back. Also mentions the required feature flag DT_ENABLE_WRITES=true. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond get.

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