Update pipeline

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose whether the update is a partial merge or a full replacement, what happens if the pipeline does not exist, or what the response contains. Annotations indicate idempotency and open-world hints, but the description itself fails to explain the actual effect of the edit.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action without any filler. It earns its place entirely and is appropriately sized for the operation, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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?

The tool has a nested object parameter and no output schema, yet the description provides minimal context. It does not explain the return value, the semantics of the pipeline object, or any side effects, leaving a critical gap in the agent's ability to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the opaque pipeline parameter, but it only mentions 'by ID' and leaves the 'pipeline' object completely undocumented. The 'pipeline' parameter is a nested object with arbitrary properties, and there is no guidance on required fields or structure, making it impossible for an agent to construct a valid update payload.

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 uses a clear verb ('Edit') and specifies the resource ('a pipeline') with an identifier ('by ID'), which makes the tool's function unambiguous. It distinguishes from pipeline create/delete/list/get siblings, though it does not elaborate on what fields can be edited.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as pipeline create or delete, or how it relates to other update tools. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the generic 'Edit' phrase.

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