ncloud_update_pipeline

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds that it updates 'tasks and triggers', providing some behavioral scope but no details on whether it performs a full replacement or merge, or what happens to omitted fields. With annotations covering the core safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate—adds value but leaves gaps.

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, well-structured sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose; there is no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 (4 parameters, deeply nested objects, many sibling tools) and the absence of an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks guidance on constructing the tasks array, trigger format, prerequisites, error handling, and return value. An AI agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional context.

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 input schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description repeats 'tasks and triggers' but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. For instance, it does not explain how the tasks array relates to existing tasks or the effect of omitting the trigger parameter. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing SourcePipeline pipeline', specifying what components are affected ('tasks and triggers'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, get, run, cancel, which have different verbs and purposes.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., need to retrieve current pipeline via ncloud_get_pipeline), when not to use it, or how it relates to create/delete/run tools. This lack of usage context limits an AI agent's ability to select the correct tool.

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