create_pipeline_variable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a write operation ('Create') and includes a critical behavioral note about secured variables ('cannot be read back from the API'). However, it omits other important details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value: the first establishes the tool's function, the argument explanations provide necessary context, and the return statement clarifies output expectations. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 tool's complexity (a write operation with 4 parameters), absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description does an adequate but incomplete job. It covers the basic creation functionality and parameter semantics well, but lacks information about authentication, error handling, permissions, or what the 'Created variable info with UUID' actually contains, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 significant semantic value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'key' represents variable names with concrete examples ('PYPI_TOKEN', 'AWS_SECRET_KEY'), clarifies that 'secured' determines encryption with a default value and important consequence ('cannot be read back'), and provides context for 'repo_slug' and 'value' parameters that the schema lacks entirely.

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 specific action ('Create a pipeline variable') and identifies the resource ('pipeline variable'), making the purpose immediately apparent. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'update_pipeline_variable' and 'delete_pipeline_variable' by focusing on creation rather than modification or deletion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_pipeline_variable' or 'get_pipeline_variable'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing repository access) or typical use cases, offering only basic functional information without strategic direction.

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