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

The description discloses a key side effect: omitted stages are preserved and never deleted, and explicitly routes card changes elsewhere. It does not contradict the destructiveHint annotation, though it does not elaborate on other potential destructive effects or result/error behavior.

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 three compact sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and avoids repeating detailed field descriptions already covered by the schema.

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 9-parameter write tool with nested stages, the description covers the most important behavioral context: create requirements, update semantics, stage preservation, and scope separation from pipeline-item-write. It is complete enough for normal use, though it does not touch on return values or failure modes.

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?

The description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics not present in the schema alone: creation requires type/name/stages, pipeline_id is required for updates, stage id presence means edit vs add, and omitted stages are preserved. This significantly clarifies the nested stage behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Create or update pipeline structure', and clarifies that cards belong to a separate tool, distinguishing it from pipeline-item-write. The create/update action is unambiguous.

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?

It states when creation is needed (requires type, name, stages), how updates affect stages, and redirects card management to pipeline-item-write. It does not explicitly contrast with pipeline-read, but the write purpose is clear enough.

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