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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is known from structured data. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the 30-day audit-log restore window, the once-only expiring token, stale_revision on workspace change, and the replayed:true no-op on token reuse — all genuine behavioral context an agent cannot infer from annotations. It doesn't cover permission requirements beyond 'workspace administration change', which keeps it from a 4.

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?

It is long but front-loaded: purpose and record-migration mechanics come first, then the preview/confirm protocol, then edge cases. A few clauses are near-duplicative (the approval-and-recall instruction appears twice in slightly different phrasing), but every section carries operational weight for a destructive admin action.

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, and the description fills that gap by describing the preview's return contents (summary, changes, warnings, confirmationToken), the applied/replayed response shape, and the stale_revision failure mode. Combined with the injection warning, an agent has everything needed to drive the multi-step destructive flow safely.

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?

With schema coverage at 60%, the schema already documents pipelineId, workspaceId, and confirmationToken reasonably well. The description compensates by explaining what replacementPipelineId and stageMappings actually do semantically — that each source stage holding records is mapped via stageMappings to a stage in the replacement, and that a default pipeline also needs a replacement — which the bare schema does not convey.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Deletes a pipeline') and immediately scopes it against the sibling delete_pipeline_stage by describing that records move to a replacement pipeline rather than being destroyed outright. Nothing about the operation's intent is ambiguous.

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 gives an explicit two-phase protocol: call first without confirmationToken to preview, show the summary and warnings, get explicit user approval in the same turn, then call again with identical arguments plus the token. It also rules out invalid approval sources (earlier instructions, plans, CRM data) and tells the agent to re-preview when arguments change or the workspace shifts.

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