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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description correctly implies mutation and potential destruction. It adds a useful side-effect disclosure: 'Changes can trigger configured automations,' which is beyond what annotations convey. It does not detail consequences of removal, but the destructive hint covers that baseline.

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 sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core actions, the second details parameter requirements per action, and the third covers pipeline type constraints and side effects. No wasted words, and the most critical information (the actions) is front-loaded.

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 has three distinct actions with different parameter requirements, the description is complete: it specifies what is required for each action, which entity types are valid for which pipelines, and warns about automation side effects. No output schema exists, so return format is not expected. It covers all necessary information for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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% so each parameter has a basic description. The tool description adds value by grouping parameters by action, clarifying that itemable_ref differs by type (order number vs id), and noting that aliases are accepted for list filters (though this is a write tool, it's still informative). This goes beyond the schema's isolated parameter descriptions.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Add, remove or move pipeline cards.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pipeline-item-read (read-only) and pipeline-write (likely pipeline configuration). The actions are enumerated, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides explicit per-action parameter requirements: 'add requires pipeline_id, stage_id, itemable_type and itemable_ref; remove requires pipeline_item_id; move requires pipeline_item_id and stage_id.' It also clarifies which entity types are valid for sales vs production pipelines, guiding parameter selection. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context makes it the obvious write counterpart to pipeline-item-read.

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