ncloud_update_pipeline

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

Annotations already declare the tool as idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context such as whether the update replaces existing tasks/triggers entirely, what happens on partial input, or any permissions needed. It does not contradict the annotations, but adds no value beyond them.

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 contains no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

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 complex nested schema and lack of output schema, the description could be more complete. It does not clarify whether the tasks and triggers fields fully replace existing configuration, and it omits any indication of success/return behavior. The detailed schema compensates somewhat, but the description alone leaves key semantic questions unanswered.

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 the description does not need to explain individual parameters. The brief mention of 'tasks and triggers' maps to the two main fields but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb (Update), a specific resource (existing SourcePipeline pipeline), and the primary scope (tasks and triggers). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_pipeline, delete_pipeline, run_pipeline, and get_pipeline.

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 this is for updating an already-existing pipeline, which gives some context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus creating a new pipeline or listing pipelines, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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