ghl_opportunity_create_pipeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-idempotent profile is covered. The description earns credit for adding what annotations cannot: the uniqueness constraints that will cause failures and the exact fallback semantics when any stage lacks a stageWinProbability. It still omits the error shape on duplicate names and whether a partially-created pipeline is rolled back.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then constraints, then the probability rule; no filler. The trailing 'Endpoint / Version / source' metadata lines are useful but add boilerplate weight beyond what an agent needs to decide and call.

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 single nested-body param with no output schema, the description covers constraints, auth scope, and conditional parameter behavior well. Two gaps remain: nothing about the response (e.g. returned pipeline id), and the schema types 'stages' as string[] while its example shows objects — an ambiguity the description could have resolved.

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%, but the description adds a cross-field rule the schema cannot express: setting useOpportunityProbability=true obliges a stageWinProbability (0–100) on every stage, else auto-computed position-based values apply. That materially changes how an agent populates the nested body, which is exactly the value-add expected here.

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 first two sentences state a specific verb and resource ('Creates a new pipeline with at least one stage') plus the owning scope ('for a given location'). Against siblings like ghl_opportunity_update_pipeline, ghl_opportunity_delete_pipeline, and ghl_opportunity_get_pipeline, the create semantic is unambiguous without opening a schema.

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 supplies real preconditions: unique pipeline name per location (case-insensitive), unique stage names, and the required 'pipelines.create' OAuth scope. What it does not do is name alternatives or exclusions — e.g. pointing to ghl_pipeline_list to check name collisions before creating — so it stops short of a 5.

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