Update pipeline stage

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond the word 'Edit.' Annotations declare openWorldHint and idempotentHint, but the description does not clarify whether updates are partial or full, which fields are affected, or any side effects. No contradiction exists, but the description fails to leverage the annotation context.

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, concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and easily parseable, though its brevity sacrifices essential detail. It earns points for efficiency but not for informativeness.

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 tool's complexity—three required parameters, a nested object, and no output schema—the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the status schema, the update behavior, or expected return values, making the tool difficult to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain pipeline_id, status_id, or the structure of the status object. The nested status object is completely undocumented, leaving the agent without any guidance on what to include.

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 the verb 'Edit' to indicate a modification operation on a 'stage in a pipeline,' which clearly distinguishes it from list/get/create/delete sibling tools. It is specific about the resource but does not explicitly name alternatives or describe the scope of editing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like kommo_stages_create or kommo_stages_delete. The description does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name.

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