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

Annotations only indicate it is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds value by specifying that it creates a template and explicitly guarantees no side effects on the default pipeline or candidate tracking, which is a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. There is zero redundancy and every word earns its place.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not guide the agent on how to construct the 'stages' array, the meaning of 'slug' patterns, the use of 'idempotency_key', or any request/response details. An agent cannot reliably call this tool based on the provided description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter explanations. It only mentions 'optional inline stages' but does not explain the required 'name' and 'slug' parameters, nor optional ones like 'request_id', 'idempotency_key', or 'description'. The description adds no semantic value for any parameter.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a custom pipeline template'), and adds 'optional inline stages' to specify the scope. This distinguishes it from sibling pipeline tools like yardstick_pipelines_update, yardstick_pipelines_list, and yardstick_pipelines_stages_create.

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 provides clear context that this is for creating a custom pipeline and explicitly clarifies it does not affect the org default pipeline or candidate tracking, which is a useful exclusion. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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