Update a pipeline's name, description, or default flag; use stage tools to add, edit, or remove stages.
Update a pipeline's name, description, or default flag. To add/edit/remove stages, use the stage tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Pipeline UUID | |
| name | No | Updated pipeline name | |
| isDefault | No | Set as the account's default pipeline | |
| description | No | Updated description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says "Update... or default flag" but never states permission requirements, whether fields not supplied are left untouched, or what setting isDefault does to any previously default pipeline (replaces? errors?). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.
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 short sentences, the mutation scope is front-loaded, and the sibling routing follows. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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?
Parameters are fully covered by the schema and there is no output schema to explain, so the essentials are present. However, as a mutation with no annotations, it should say more about permission needs and the side effect of toggling the default flag; those are the remaining holes an agent would care about.
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% and each parameter has its own description, so the structured data already documents id, name, isDefault, and description. The description restates the updatable fields without adding format, constraint, or side-effect details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 a pipeline") and immediately scopes it to the editable fields (name, description, default flag). The second sentence explicitly contrasts with the stage tools, so the agent can distinguish it from conduyt_update_stage and friends.
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?
Provides an explicit routing rule: stage changes belong to the stage tools, not here. That is a clear boundary, though there is no stated prerequisite or when-not guidance for the update itself (e.g. whether the pipeline must be owned by the caller).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.