delete_pipeline

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating mutation and potential irreversibility, and the description confirms deletion. The description adds no further behavioral details but does not contradict annotations. For a destructive operation with full annotation coverage, this is sufficient.

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 a single sentence of 7 words, conveying the essential purpose with zero waste. It is front-loaded and concise.

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 complexity (simple delete with 2 parameters) and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimally complete. It lacks details like prerequisites or side effects, but with comprehensive annotations, it meets the minimum threshold.

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%, so the schema documents both parameters well. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, but since coverage is high, a baseline 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 clearly identifies the verb ('Delete'), the resource ('a pipeline configuration'), and the system ('Spinnaker'), which is specific and informative. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tools like 'save_pipeline' or 'update_pipeline', but the difference is obvious from the name and context, so it scores well.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use this versus 'delete_strategy' or other deletion tools. However, the destructive hint and the tool's name imply it is for pipelines only, offering implied usage context.

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