create_pipeline

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, but it only states the action. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether default stages are created or how is_main conflicts are resolved), permission requirements, or what the tool returns. The mutation nature is implied by the verb, but no additional behavioral context is added.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no wasted words. It is well-structured, though slightly under-sized given the amount of contextual information an agent would need.

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 creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It does not explain the prerequisite that client_slug must be an available client, what happens on success, or how this relates to creating pipeline stages. An agent knows what the tool does but lacks invocation-level context for a real workflow.

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 all four parameters (name, sort, is_main, client_slug) are already documented in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. It could have added value by noting that client_slug must match an existing client, but the schema already handles the documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb ('Cria' = creates), a specific resource ('novo funil de vendas (pipeline)'), and a scope ('no CRM'). This clearly differentiates it from read/update/delete pipeline siblings and from create_* tools for other entities. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the pipeline-stage creation sibling, leaving entity-level ambiguity that the agent must resolve from tool names.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that client_slug must reference an existing client obtainable via get_available_clients, nor that stages are added separately via the pipeline-stage creation sibling. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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