update_evaluation_pipeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose key mutation semantics: existing graders are replaced and tasks are rebuilt automatically. However, it does not explain what happens to omitted fields, the condition object, or whether changes are reversible, which matters for a destructive update.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every sentence adds useful operational information: full-structure requirement, replacement behavior, and task rebuild side effect.

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?

This is a complex seven-parameter mutation with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers core replacement semantics but leaves important fields like condition, combine, and weights unexplained. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in varied scenarios.

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 57%, and the description adds useful context about full structure and replacement of graders. However, it does not clarify the semantics of weights, the condition object, or how combine interacts with weights, so parameter meaning remains incomplete.

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 starts with 'Update an evaluator pipeline,' which is a specific verb plus resource. It also clarifies that the full updated structure must be provided, distinguishing this from create/get/list pipeline siblings.

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 clear usage context: provide the full structure and understand that existing graders are replaced and tasks are rebuilt. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the update-vs-create distinction is clear enough.

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