conduyt_create_pipeline

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. It usefully discloses two behaviors the schema cannot: default New/Won/Lost stages are auto-created and there is no stage-count cap. It omits permission requirements, whether setting isDefault demotes the existing default, and any irreversibility of creation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the most decision-relevant fact (default stages). The closing example is illustrative but slightly padded; still, every sentence carries information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers default-stage behavior and array sizing but leaves gaps around authorization, name uniqueness, default-pipeline side effects, and what the call returns. Adequate but not complete.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: it explains the consequence of omitting the stages parameter (defaults generated) and clarifies the stages array scales to arbitrary length, including the isSystem-style holding stages. It does not add detail on isDefault or description.

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 sales pipeline,' and clarifies that stages can be created in the same call, which distinguishes it from conduyt_create_stage. It stops short of naming the sibling tools for post-creation stage edits, but the scope is 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?

Gives implicit guidance via default behavior (omitting stages creates New/Won/Lost), which tells the agent when the stages array is optional. It never says when to prefer this over conduyt_update_pipeline or conduyt_create_stage, nor any prerequisites such as permissions.

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