Update pipeline storage settings

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

Annotations only tell the agent readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the intent: it does not say whether the migration is reversible, whether the pipeline is unavailable while migrating, what happens to existing content, or what permissions/credentials are needed for the target repository.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the parameter exceptions trailing. No filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, for an 8-parameter mutation with only 38% schema coverage, the description omits prerequisites, credential requirements for the target repository, and the effect of the migration.

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 low (38%), so the description needs to compensate. It clarifies the selector parameters (pipeline_id/alias) and one non-obvious rule for working_branch vs default_branch, but leaves repository, path, storageProvider, and defaultBranch semantics unexplained.

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 (migrate) and resource (pipeline) plus the direction of the change: Orchestra-backed storage to git-backed storage. This clearly separates it from update_pipeline or create_pipeline, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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 operational guidance on identifying the target ('pipeline_id or alias') and a conditional rule ('omit working_branch when it equals default_branch'), which is real usage help. It does not say when to choose this tool over update_pipeline or the other pipeline-mutating siblings.

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