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

The annotations already flag the operation as destructive and idempotent, but the description adds semantics those annotations cannot express: revisions remain readable, the key is permanently consumed, no requests can reach the pipeline afterward, and the operation is refused in two specific cases. That is the exact post-condition and failure-mode detail a destructive tool needs.

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 front-loaded with the main action and its effects, and every clause carries weight. The refusal conditions appear in a parenthetical aside, which is readable but slightly dense; a short split into two sentences would make the constraints easier to scan.

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?

There is no output schema or nested structure to explain, and the description covers the effect, the irreversibility of the key, the blocked-request consequence, and both refusal conditions. An agent has everything it needs to call this correctly or know why it should not.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the schema description covers 100% of it, so the schema already documents both the key value and the special 'entry' value. The description reinforces the entry-pipeline constraint but adds no new format or syntax details for pipeline_key, so a baseline 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 gives a specific verb ('Archive') plus resource ('a pipeline') and enumerates the concrete consequences: revisions stay readable but inactive, the key is permanently consumed, and no request can reach it. This clearly separates it from sibling 'archive_*' tools, which target agents, teams, gateways, and webhooks instead of pipelines.

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 states two explicit blocking conditions — the 'entry' pipeline and any active revision that still delegates to the pipeline — and names the exact prerequisite action (call list_pipeline_uses, then remove those delegate blocks). It tells the agent both when the operation will be refused and which sibling tool to call first.

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