create_stage

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantive behavior: stages are appended after existing editable stages with computed sort, each call creates a new record, the created stage is returned, and both stage and pipeline caches are cleared. That cache-invalidation side effect in particular is not visible in any structured field, making this genuinely additive.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, placement rules, idempotency, return value, and cache side effect. The core action is front-loaded and nothing is repeated for padding.

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 three-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call-time concerns: placement, non-idempotency, return value, and cache invalidation. It could still mention permission requirements, whether stage names must be unique, or what happens on invalid pipeline_id, but the definition is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents name, color, and pipeline_id in detail (including where to obtain the ID and Kommo palette caveats). The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Add a stage to a pipeline'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as create_pipeline or update_stage, but the purpose itself is clear enough that an agent can identify it without opening the 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description explains placement and non-idempotency, which implicitly tells the agent this is for creating brand-new stages. It never names an alternative or a when-not condition (e.g., use update_stage to rename or reorder), so the agent must infer the boundary from the purpose alone.

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