ai_pipeline_run

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It describes dispatching logic and state writing but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or error behavior, which are critical for a multi-step execution tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence provides meaningful information about the tool's behavior without redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description omits details on parameter usage, return value, and error handling, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 50%, but the description only adds minimal context for the pipeline parameter and update_step_stats. Parameters like connection, source_model, source_id, tenant_code, tenant_tier, and extra_ctx are not explained, leaving the agent without guidance on their use.

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 clearly states the tool executes an Odoo-defined pipeline, explains the step ordering, and distinguishes from similar tools like ai_pipeline_step_execute by detailing the orchestration logic.

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 implies usage for executing a full pipeline but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like ai_pipeline_step_execute or ai_invoice_pipeline_run, and no when-not-to-use instructions.

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