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

Annotations already flag mutation and destructiveness, and the description adds critical behavior beyond that: deals follow re-key via internal id, delete fails when deals still reference the pipeline, and the display name vs key distinction. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two dense sentences with front-loaded purpose; every clause contributes an action, parameter meaning, or constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers all actions, parameter formats, a key failure condition, and a cross-tool pointer. For a mutation tool this is sufficient for safe selection and 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 covers only name and new_key descriptions, leaving pipeline and action open; the description compensates by defining pipeline as key or pl_ id and fully explaining each action enum value. It also clarifies relationship behavior (deals follow automatically) beyond schema text.

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?

Description opens with 'Change an existing pipeline by key or pl_ id,' a specific verb and resource. It then enumerates three distinct actions (rename, set_default, delete), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling creation/read tools.

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?

Explicitly directs read use to relm_get_pipeline, naming an alternative. It also gives conditional guidance for delete ('fails if deals still use it - move them first') and explains rename semantics, so an agent knows when and how to invoke.

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