save_pipeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description adds value beyond that: it calls out that this is a mutating operation, that the new pipeline becomes visible in the Spinnaker UI, and that it returns a confirmation — effects an agent can't infer from the annotations alone. It omits any auth/permission requirements or failure modes, but the added context is meaningful.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the sibling routing rule, which is the most decision-relevant information. The third sentence slightly repeats the creation fact already established, costing a little efficiency.

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 one-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the alternative to use for updates, the mutating nature, the UI visibility effect, and the confirmation return. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents pipeline_json as the full pipeline JSON definition. The description restates that it accepts a full pipeline JSON definition but adds no format, size, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (save a new pipeline configuration to Spinnaker) and explicitly scopes it to brand-new pipelines, naming update_pipeline as the contrasting sibling. An agent can distinguish it from update_pipeline without inspecting either schema.

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?

Explicitly says to use this for creating a brand-new definition and to use update_pipeline instead for modifying an existing one. The when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions are both spelled out with a named alternative.

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