update_pipeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to explain whether the update is partial or full, what happens if the template_id does not exist, any permission requirements, or what the return value is. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 directly lists the parameters in a clear format. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the main purpose sentence from the parameter list, but this is efficient.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out critical context: update semantics (partial vs full replacement), error handling, and return behavior. For a tool with 4 parameters, more guidance is needed to use it correctly.

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 must compensate. It provides basic meaning for each parameter (e.g., template_id is UUID, pipeline_config is JSON config, name/description are optional). However, it does not explain how pipeline_config is merged or any constraints beyond 'optional'. It adds some value but not enough to fully offset the schema gap.

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 'Update' and the resource 'existing workflow pipeline template', which distinguishes it from create_pipeline (create) and archive_pipeline (archive). The scope is specific and unambiguous.

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 clearly implies use for updating an existing pipeline template, which contrasts with creating or archiving. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for new templates use create_pipeline), so no strong exclusions are provided.

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