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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the exact default stage set applied when stages is omitted and the 'Names must be unique' constraint that governs failure. It does not describe what happens on a uniqueness violation, but the added context is above baseline.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that creates the tool first, then illustrates the stages argument and the default behavior. The example is somewhat long but earns its place by concretizing the expected array format.

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?

With no output schema, the description should ideally say what a successful call yields (e.g., the created pipeline object or its id), and it says nothing about the response. For a two-parameter creation tool the core input behavior is covered, but the return contract is a real gap.

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 coverage is 50% (only stages is documented in the schema), so the description must carry more weight. It explains stage ordering ('in order', first-to-last via example) and the default fallback when stages is omitted, and it adds the uniqu</br>eness rule for name that the schema does not state.

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 new ShearQuery pipeline') plus the stages concept, cleanly distinguishing it from crm_update_pipeline, crm_delete_pipeline, and crm_pipelines. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation relies on the verb rather than routing language.

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 does give conditional guidance on the stages parameter ('Leave stages out for a default...'), which is useful context. However, it offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance versus crm_update_pipeline or crm_pipelines, leaving the create-vs-modify decision to inference from the name.

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