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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It does: the first revision goes live at once, the pipeline key is permanent (archived pipelines included, never 'entry'), and a human must grant pipeline.read/write/activate at pipeline:<key> for the team to edit it.

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, front-loaded with the creation action and its immediate-activation consequence, followed by the use case and the permission follow-up. Dense but every sentence carries information; the middle sentence is slightly narrative but not redundant.

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 create tool with no output schema and fully described parameters, the description covers the meaningful unknowns: immediate revision activation, key immutability, delegation wiring and post-creation permissions. It does not say what the call returns (e.g. the created key/object), which would be the last missing piece.

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 each parameter already carries a detailed description (key format and permanence, blocks shape, default_escalation_path inheritance). The description only reinforces the blocks/activation behavior and adds no new parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Create a pipeline') and then explains its distinctive semantics: it is the target of a delegate block in another pipeline and its first revision is active immediately. That is enough to tell it apart from update_pipeline, create_escalation_path and the other create_* siblings.

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 second sentence gives an explicit use case ('give one team its own part of the approval flow') and describes the entry-pipeline/delegate-pipeline split of responsibility. It stops short of naming alternatives such as update_pipeline or preview_pipeline, so the 'when not to use' half is missing.

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