Create a pipeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-not-destructive profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only that the body is; it says nothing about permissions, what 'published' vs draft implies, storage-provider side effects, or account scoping, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one useful prerequisite. No filler and nothing buried.

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 an 11-parameter, nested-object mutation with only 18% schema coverage, the description is too thin; the output schema means return values need not be described, but the input-side gaps remain. An agent could not confidently populate the branch/repository/storage parameters from this definition alone.

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 18% across 11 parameters, so the schema does almost none of the work; the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It only clarifies the 'data' payload shape and points at validate_pipeline, leaving alias, message, yamlPath, published, repository, defaultBranch, workingBranch, messageIsCustom, and storageProvider unexplained in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new pipeline') and adds that the body carries a JSON pipeline definition, so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not, however, disambiguate from close siblings such as import_pipeline, migrate_pipeline, or update_pipeline, which an agent might reasonably confuse with it.

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?

Gives a concrete conditional next-step: run validate_pipeline (linked as the schema-validation endpoint) first if you want to check the payload without saving. That is real routing guidance, but it only covers validation, not when to prefer create over import_pipeline/migrate_pipeline for an existing definition.

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