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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it explicitly says this is a dry-run, that it changes nothing, and what information it returns regarding lead fallback. This is exactly the behavioral context needed for a non-mutating preview of a destructive operation.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no waste. The dry-run safety statement and prerequisite instruction are both stated efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, one fully documented parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers the operation's nature, its effect, its safety profile, and its relationship to the destructive sibling.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single required id parameter ('Branch id (UUID)'). The description does not add further semantics about the id beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb and resource: a dry-run preview of deleting a pipeline before the actual delete. It clearly distinguishes itself from delete_crm_branch and explains the concrete effect: showing affected leads that would fall back to General. An agent can identify its role without inspecting sibling schemas.

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 usage rule: 'ALWAYS call before delete_crm_branch.' This directly routes the agent to use this preview tool as a prerequisite for the destructive sibling. The when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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