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

Annotations already declare the write/non-destructive/non-idempotent profile, and the description adds real context beyond them: the created pipeline comes pre-populated with standard stages and the caller must be an admin or owner of the CRM project. It does not disclose duplicate-name behavior or what is returned, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the most important fact (default stages plus the sibling to change them) is front-loaded. The opening is a sentence fragment, which slightly hurts readability but not information density.

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, it covers the key prerequisites (permissions) and the initial object state (standard stages) plus the natural follow-up tool. It leaves open whether the new pipeline id is returned and how name collisions are handled, so it is adequate but not 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 coverage is only 33% — just workspace_id is documented — and the description adds no meaning for the name or description parameters, nor does it explain constraints or defaults. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 identifies the resource (a new sales pipeline) and its defining behavior (created with standard stages), which distinguishes it from dosai_list_pipelines and dosai_update_pipeline. The verb is only implied by the title rather than stated in the description, so it is clear but not maximally explicit.

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 routes the agent to dosai_update_pipeline for renaming/changing stages, which is useful follow-up guidance, and it states the permission requirement (admin or owner). However, it gives no guidance on checking existing pipelines first (dosai_list_pipelines) or on archiving instead of creating, so when-to-use vs alternatives is only implied.

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