Delete a saved pipeline

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

The description directly contradicts the idempotentHint: true annotation: it explicitly states that deleting an unknown name raises and 'a second delete of the same name also raises,' meaning repeated calls with the same arguments produce an error rather than a harmless repeat. Per the rubric, a contradiction with annotations forces a score of 1. The safety-confinement and error-behavior details are otherwise excellent, but the idempotency conflict is a serious signal for an agent deciding whether re-invocation is safe.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds a distinct safety or behavioral fact (provenance, directory confinement, refusal-before-touch, error-on-unknown, re-delete raising). The heavy use of em-dash parentheticals makes the sentences dense and requires careful parsing, but there is no wasted wording.

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 a single parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering destructiveness, the description covers everything needed to invoke correctly: name provenance, path-confinement safety, and error behavior. The one gap is that the conflicting idempotency signal between the annotation and the description leaves the agent with ambiguous guidance about repeat calls, which keeps this from being fully complete.

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 0% and the bare schema offers only a 'Name' string, so the description carries the full burden for the name parameter and meets it completely: it specifies that the name must have been written by save_pipeline, must match what list_pipelines reports, must not resolve outside the trusted directory, and that unknown names raise with a list of existing names. An agent can determine exactly what value to pass and what will happen if it is wrong.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource statement: 'Delete exactly one pipeline YAML file previously written by save_pipeline, by the same name list_pipelines reports.' It names the exact resource, scopes it to previously saved pipelines, and connects to the two sibling tools that define valid names, which cleanly separates it from delete_capability and the run/preview pipeline 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?

The description tells the agent where valid names come from (save_pipeline / list_pipelines) and frames the safety contract: there is no directory argument, so the tool is confined to settings.PIPELINES_DIRECTORY and refuses out-of-directory names before touching anything. It does not, however, explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative tool for deleting other resources, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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