pipeline_create

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes side effects: writing PipelineState into task.config['pipeline'] and recording in stage_history, and explicitly states a non-behavior (no ceremonial subtasks). This is highly transparent.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence fronts the core purpose, and the second adds necessary behavioral detail. No redundant or extra words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (handling return value documentation), the description covers the tool's effect well. It explains what it writes and what it doesn't do. Could be slightly more complete by noting any prerequisites (e.g., task existence), but not necessary for this simple init tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, but that is acceptable since the schema already describes task_id and task_type adequately.

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 (initialize a pipeline) and the resource (on a task using a lifecycle template), with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pipeline_advance and pipeline_status by focusing on initialization.

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 on what the tool does and explicitly states what it does NOT do (generate ceremonial subtasks). While it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, the purpose is distinct enough for an agent to infer when to use it.

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