Delete Pipeline Trigger Token

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations cannot convey: the deletion is permanent and dependent systems lose the ability to start pipelines, which is exactly the impact an agent needs before mutating.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the permanence and blast radius are front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite and the pre-check recommendation.

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?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, it covers consequence and pre-check adequately but leaves gaps: nothing on how project_id affects scope, nor on the behavior when the trigger_id does not exist (error vs. silent success). Adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only restates that trigger_id is required — already enforced by the schema. The project_id parameter, which is optional and scopes the lookup, is never mentioned or explained.

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 ('Delete a pipeline trigger token') and qualifies it as permanent. This cleanly separates it from the sibling list/create/get/update pipeline-trigger tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with adjacent deletes such as gitlab_delete_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?

Gives an actionable pre-condition ('Recommended pre-check: gitlab_list_pipeline_triggers'), which tells the agent to verify the trigger exists first. It stops short of stating when deletion is inappropriate or what to do if the token is in active use.

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