Import a pipeline

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is known. The description adds that the source is Git-backed, but says nothing about whether an existing pipeline is overwritten, what happens on conflict, which credential/account is required, or whether the import is synchronous.

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?

A single tight sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. Nothing in it is wasted, though the terseness is also the source of the gaps elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a 7-parameter mutation tool with 14% schema coverage the description is far too thin. It omits conflict/overwrite behavior, auth context, and the meaning of nearly all parameters.

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 only 14% (just X-Orchestra-Account-Id), leaving six parameters undocumented. The description only implies the 'repository' parameter via the phrase 'from a repository' and explains none of yamlPath, defaultBranch, workingBranch, storageProvider, or alias.

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 (Import) and resource (a Git-backed pipeline definition) with a clear source (a repository) and destination (Orchestra). It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as create_pipeline, migrate_pipeline, or validate_pipeline, which an agent must choose between.

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 says nothing about when to import rather than create or migrate a pipeline, and gives no prerequisites (e.g. repository access, credential setup). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the sibling list.

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