conduyt_update_stage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and leaves key traits unstated: whether this is a partial patch or full replace, what happens to omitted fields, whether isWon and isLost can both be true, and what permission level is needed. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful 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?

A single sentence, no filler, with the operation and the set of editable attributes front-loaded. Every clause 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 an 8-parameter update tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers what can be changed and the identification inputs are in the schema. It falls short only on update semantics and safety context that would round it out.

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 100%, so every parameter including pipelineId, stageId, and isSystem is already documented in the schema. The description only mirrors the field list (and cross-references sortOrder), adding no format or constraint detail like the mutual exclusivity of won/lost.

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 stage within a pipeline") and enumerates the mutable facets: name, color, order, won/lost/system flags. That clearly separates it from create_stage, delete_stage, and update_pipeline, though it never names those siblings 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 scope of the edit is clear but there is no guidance on when to use this versus updating the parent pipeline, nor prerequisites such as needing the stage to exist or permissions. Usage is implied by the verb rather than stated.

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