harness_create

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

Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, and the description does not contradict that. It adds useful workflow context around body format and remote git parameters, but it does not disclose runtime behavior such as whether existing resources are overwritten, confirmation requirements, or error semantics beyond what the schema already covers.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then delivers the most important conditional guidance in a compact, well-organized form. Every sentence earns its place, and the use of colon-separated cases keeps the branching logic readable without excessive length.

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 large resource_type enum and nested body/params structures, the description is reasonably complete: it covers the main problem cases (pipelines/input sets and remote pipelines) and routes users to harness_describe for other resource formats. The input schema covers the remaining parameters at 100% description coverage, and an output schema exists, so missing return-value details are acceptable.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by recommending a direct YAML string for complex pipelines, explaining the body.yamlPipeline and body.pipeline alternatives, and enumerating the exact keys needed for remote Git and Harness Code pipelines. This goes beyond the schema's generic parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource statement, 'Create a Harness resource,' and immediately distinguishes creation from the sibling tools like harness_update, harness_delete, and harness_execute. It also elaborates on which resource types have special handling, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 clear usage guidance for pipelines/input sets and remote pipelines, including when to pass a YAML string versus a JSON object and which git parameters to include. It directs users to harness_describe for other resource body formats, though it does not explicitly state when to prefer update/delete over create.

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