create_pipeline

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. It does not mention side effects (e.g., creation is immediate, run_now default), permissions, idempotency, or return value. The only behavioral hint is that the shape of source/destination depends on type, which is more of a parameter nuance than a behavioral trait.

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 purpose, and each sentence earns its place. The pointer to external documentation avoids bloating the description with inline schema details.

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?

The description is minimal and relies heavily on the provided schema and an external URL. It does not describe expected outcomes, error conditions, or the response shape. Given the tool's nested objects and no output schema, this is a moderate level of completeness, acceptable but with clear gaps.

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 schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly noting that source/destination shapes are type-dependent and gives examples (MYSQL, POSTGRES, etc.), plus a link to full schemas. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool's action ('Create a new Hevo pipeline') with a specific verb and resource. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools (list, get, enable, etc.), all of which are different operations.

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 implies the tool is used when creating a pipeline, but does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. It offers no exclusions or alternative guidance, though the distinct action makes the intent reasonably clear.

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