voice_create_pipeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lacks disclosure of side effects (e.g., does creation replace an existing pipeline? Are there permission requirements?). Only basic parameter guidance is given, not behavioral traits.

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 exceptionally concise: one line for purpose and one line for parameter guidance. It is front-loaded and contains no filler text.

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 11 parameters and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description should cover more. It fails to explain required vs optional parameters, default behaviors, or return value. While an output schema may exist, the description itself is too sparse for a complex creation 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?

The description adds value by explaining that engines are entity IDs with examples (e.g., 'stt.faster_whisper'). However, schema coverage is 0%, and only a few parameters are implicitly addressed; many like conversation_engine or language are left undefined. Baseline 3 with partial compensation.

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 tool's purpose as creating a new Assist pipeline, with specific verb 'Create' and resource 'pipeline'. It distinguishes from siblings like voice_update_pipeline and voice_delete_pipeline by focusing on creation.

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 mentions using list_services or list_entities to discover engines, which provides context for parameter values. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like voice_update_pipeline, nor does it specify when creation is appropriate over updating.

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