conduyt_create_stage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and usefully discloses that the new stage is appended after the last stage. However, it omits other important mutation details such as permission requirements, whether the stage name must be unique, reversibility, and side effects of the isWon/isLost/isSystem flags.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by placement behavior and a use-case example. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 moderately complex creation tool with six well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and how the new stage is positioned. It could be more complete by noting permissions or flag-related caveats, but the core information needed to invoke it is present.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters in detail. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage but does not exceed the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Add a new stage to an existing pipeline') and clarifies the placement behavior ('appended after the current last stage'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like conduyt_update_stage and conduyt_delete_stage.

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?

It gives a clear use case ('extend a funnel') with concrete examples ('On Hold' or 'Declined/Dead'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for correct selection.

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