create_pipeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that a pipeline is created, not whether the operation is asynchronous, what side effects occur, or what is returned. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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 10-word sentence front-loads the verb and key scoping. There is no redundant text or boilerplate. Some context is absent, but what is present is efficiently structured.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what a successful response contains and any operational consequences, but it doesn't. It also omits the project context, although the schema does document project_id. The tool is minimally recognizable but not fully contextualized.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents ref, inputs, variables, and project_id. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating that the ref is a branch or tag. Baseline 3 is therefore appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('a new pipeline') scoped to a branch or tag. It distinguishes the tool from read-only pipeline siblings like get_pipeline or list_pipelines, though it doesn't name them. Minor gap: no mention of project context.

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 implies the tool is used when a new pipeline run should be triggered on a branch or tag, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not compare against sibling tools such as retry_pipeline or cancel_pipeline. This 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.