Edit Pipeline Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that this is a partial update ('Only include fields you want to change') and that it does not affect pipeline items, adding meaningful context beyond a generic 'update' statement. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or response format, which are minor omissions for an update 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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. It contains no redundant phrases or filler, and every sentence delivers essential information about purpose, scope, or usage.

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 simple update tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it differs from related tools, the partial-update behavior, and how to find the required ID. It is not overly verbose and provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. Missing details like authentication or return values are not critical here.

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?

The schema already describes each parameter with 100% coverage, providing the baseline. The description adds value by clarifying the partial-update semantics ('Only include fields you want to change') and by advising how to obtain the status_id ('Use get_pipeline_statuses'). This goes beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 opens with 'Update an existing pipeline status', clearly stating the verb and resource. It further clarifies that it modifies the status definition rather than individual pipeline items, which distinguishes it from the sibling edit_pipeline_item tool. This is specific and precise.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Only include fields you want to change' instructs on partial updates, and 'Use get_pipeline_statuses to find status IDs' names the prerequisite lookup tool. It also clarifies the scope boundary ('not individual pipeline items'), effectively telling when not to use this tool.

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