Create pipeline stages

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

The description offers no behavioral details beyond the action itself. It does not disclose side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or impact on existing stages. The openWorldHint annotation exists but remains generic; the description does not clarify what this means for this specific 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, which is appropriate for a simple tool name and title.

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?

The tool has two parameters, zero schema descriptions, an openWorldHint annotation, and no output schema. The description does not explain what the tool returns, how statuses relate to pipeline stages, or what side effects to expect. It is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool with confidence.

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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter semantics, yet it says nothing about the format or structure of 'statuses' or 'pipeline_id'. The word 'stages' only restates the resource without explaining how the statuses array should be populated, key names, or constraints.

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 'Add one or more stages to a pipeline' uses a specific verb ('Add') and clearly identifies the resource ('stages') and target context ('pipeline'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kommo_stages_list, get, update, and delete, which handle different operations on stages.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where another tool (e.g., kommo_pipelines_update) would be more appropriate. Usage is only implied by the name and sibling set.

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