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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the first revision goes live immediately, the key is permanent (archived pipelines included) and cannot be 'entry', and a person must grant pipeline.read/write/activate at pipeline:<key>. These are exactly the operational details annotations cannot express.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage and then the post-creation permission step. Dense but each sentence carries distinct load; only the mixed audience/workflow framing is slightly more elaborate than strictly necessary.

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?

For a creation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the immediate side effect (first revision active), key immutability, default escalation behavior, and the follow-up permission grant. Return shape is not described, but for a create operation whose effect is stated up front this is close to complete.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, including the omit/empty-list behavior for blocks and the escalation-path inheritance. The description reinforces the permission model around pipeline:<key> but adds little parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (a pipeline), and pins down exactly what the created object is for: a target a delegate block in another pipeline hands matching requests to. This is enough to distinguish it from update_pipeline, archive_pipeline, and preview_pipeline without opening any schema.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use context with the team-owns-part-of-the-approval-flow scenario and the split of responsibility between entry pipeline and new pipeline. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use update_pipeline to modify an existing pipeline), so it is strong context rather than a full routing guide.

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