update_document_pipeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the HTTP verb (PUT), the fact that the verb changed from POST in v1, the docType exclusion, and the exact route. It does not cover permission requirements, whether stage transitions are validated, or whether the change is reversible.

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 dense sentences with the core action first and constraints after; nothing is padding. The route template is mildly implementation-leaky but is short and useful for debugging, so it earns its place.

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 four-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the verb, version, route, and the one docType limitation. It could note what a successful response confirms or what happens with an invalid stageId, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine meaning by flagging that one value in the docType enum (purchaserefund) will fail, a constraint the schema itself does not convey. It adds nothing for documentId, pipelineId, or stageId beyond their schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update pipeline stage for a document'), and the API version and route make it unambiguous that this targets the pipeline endpoint rather than the document itself. An agent can distinguish it from sibling update_document without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the one unsupported case ('all docTypes except purchaserefund (v2 limitation)'), which is a real usage guardrail an agent would otherwise miss. It stops short of pointing to an alternative path for purchaserefund or stating prerequisites, so it isn't a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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