create_pipeline_stage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says the tool creates a stage. It does not mention permissions, side effects, uniqueness constraints, default ordering/color behavior, or failure modes.

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 states the core action and target without filler. It is front-loaded and easy for an agent to parse.

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 create operation with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this minimal description is not enough. The agent is left without expectations about required pipeline existence, defaults, the response, or confirmation of success.

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?

All five parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain them. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already covers this dimension 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 uses a specific verb ('Cria' – creates) and names the resource ('nova etapa (status) dentro de um funil de vendas existente'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_pipeline_stage and delete_pipeline_stage.

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?

It establishes the prerequisite that the pipeline must already exist ('existente'), which gives some context for when to call it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus update_pipeline_stage.

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