Update a pipeline by selector

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds the Git-backed exclusion, but does not say whether supplying `data` fully replaces the existing definition, whether changes are reversible, what permissions are needed, or what happens to omitted fields. For a mutation tool this leaves real behavioral questions open.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the selector, then the exclusion. No padding or restated boilerplate.

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 no explanation, and the selector story is mostly told. However, with only 40% schema coverage on a 5-parameter mutation tool, the description does not compensate for undocumented `published` semantics, selector precedence, or whether the update is a full replacement.

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 only 40%, so `alias`, `pipelineId`, and `published` are undocumented in the schema. The description confirms the selector concept but uses `pipeline_id` while the schema property is `pipelineId`, and it never states precedence when both selectors are supplied.

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 (Update) and resource (an existing Orchestra-backed pipeline), and explicitly narrows scope by excluding Git-backed pipelines, which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling pipeline mutations like create_pipeline or migrate_pipeline.

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?

Gives a clear when-not condition ('Git-backed pipelines cannot be updated through this endpoint') and names the selector mechanism. It stops short of routing between alternatives such as migrate_pipeline or import_pipeline when a Git-backed update is needed.

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