harness_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds useful context about body formats and remote Git options, but does not disclose side effects, confirmation behavior (beyond schema), or permission requirements. No contradiction with annotations.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Create a Harness resource'), and each subsequent sentence adds specific guidance for different scenarios without fluff. It is efficient and well-structured for a complex tool.

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 generic create tool with 8 parameters, many resource types, and an output schema, the description covers the key branches (pipelines, remote Git) and directs to harness_describe for other resources. Combined with a rich schema and annotations, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds some nuance for body (YAML string vs yamlPipeline vs pipeline) and params for remote Git, but this largely mirrors or slightly extends the schema descriptions, providing incremental value rather than essential new meaning.

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 starts with 'Create a Harness resource,' which clearly states the verb ('Create') and the resource type ('Harness resource'), distinguishing it from sibling update/delete/get tools. However, it remains generic about which specific resources are supported, leaving that to the schema enum, so it does not fully differentiate among the many resource types.

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 provides explicit guidance for pipelines/input sets (YAML vs object) and remote pipelines (external Git vs Harness Code), and instructs users to call harness_describe for other resource types. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the create verb makes that clear.

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