create_pipeline_stage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create' and lists parameters, but does not mention any required permissions, reversibility, side effects, or effects on existing pipeline stages. The mutation nature is already evident from the tool name, so the description adds no extra behavioral insight.

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 compact docstring with a clear opening sentence and an Args list. It is concise and well-structured, with each parameter explanation earning its place. Some explanations are redundant with parameter names, but the overall format is efficient and easy to scan.

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 tool is a straightforward create operation with a simple 5-parameter schema and an output schema present. The description covers all parameters and states the action, but it omits any prerequisites (e.g., pipeline must exist) or notes about stage ordering. While the output schema handles return values, the lack of caveats makes it only minimally-sufficient for complete usage.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It adds useful context for expected_days ('Expected number of days a deal spends in this stage') and default_probability ('Default win probability (0-100)'). However, pipeline_id, name, and description are merely restated without additional clarification, making the added value partial.

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 begins with 'Create a new stage within a deal pipeline', which is a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_pipeline_stage and archive_pipeline_stage. The scope is unambiguous and leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. The verb 'Create' implicitly suggests that this is for new stages only, but there is no direct reference to update or archive tools. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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