Ghl Create Pipeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns 'WRITES to the live account,' which signals a mutation, but it does not mention whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if a pipeline with the same name exists, or any permission requirements. For a write tool, this is minimal transparency.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It has no redundant phrases or filler. However, it is arguably too short to provide any contextual framing, though this is not a structural flaw—it is a matter of completeness.

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 a simple create operation with three parameters (two required) and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The schema covers parameter details, and the description states the core purpose. Still, it omits any guidance on when to use this tool or what constitutes a valid pipeline configuration, which an agent might need for correct invocation.

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%, meaning every parameter (name, stages, location_id) already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it does not go beyond the baseline expected for full schema coverage. The baseline of 3 is 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 clearly states 'Create an opportunity pipeline,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like ghl_list_pipelines (which lists rather than creates) and ghl_create_custom_field (which creates a different entity type). However, it does not elaborate on what an 'opportunity pipeline' entails beyond the name, so it is clear but not deeply descriptive.

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 prerequisites, such as needing a location_id, nor does it reference sibling tools like ghl_list_pipelines for verification. The only context is 'WRITES to the live account,' which implies a write operation but gives no condition for selection.

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