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

Annotations already declare destructive/safe-write/idempotent, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: soft-delete recoverability by an admin, the live-opportunity refusal, the undefeatable default pipeline, the benign unknown-key behavior (returns known pipelines rather than erroring), admin-only auth requirement, and the return value.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and the key precedence, then prerequisites, in a logical order. It loses a point for restating the reassignment constraint twice (main body and 'When to use'), which is redundant given how compact the rest is.

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?

With annotations carrying the safety profile and an output schema covering the return value, the description still supplies everything else an agent needs: auth requirement, prerequisites, edge-case behavior, and recoverability. Nothing material is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema descriptions already state 'id wins if both are given' and 'Prefer this.' The description reinforces the key/id precedence but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Archive (soft-delete) a named pipeline') and precisely names the two identifier parameters. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling archive/delete tools (archive_field, archive_object, delete_record) and from update_pipeline.

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 'When to use' section states the condition ('an admin no longer needs a named pipeline') and the blocking precondition ('Refused while deals are still on it — reassign those first'). When-not guidance is explicit, not implied.

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