delete_deal_pipeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the critical side effect that deleting a pipeline also deletes all deals within it. This goes beyond the obvious 'delete' action and is essential for safe usage. However, it does not mention other potential effects such as irreversibility, permissions required, or impact on stages/notes.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences plus a parameter explanation. It front-loads the action, highlights the critical side effect, and then defines the parameter. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary fluff.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, the most important side effect, and the parameter. It perfectly addresses the core use case and risks. The only gap is the lack of explicit alternative guidance, but that does not detract significantly from completeness for this simplicity level.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage for pipeline_id, but the description's Args section defines it as 'The Nimble pipeline ID.' This clarifies that the ID is a Nimble-specific identifier, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema's string type. It is helpful but not rich in detail.

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 states the action: 'Delete a deal pipeline by ID.' It names the specific resource (deal pipeline), the method (by ID), and distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_deal_pipeline by calling out that all deals will also be deleted.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the warning 'All deals in it will also be deleted!' implies a caution that this is a heavy destructive operation. There is no explicit mention of using archive_deal_pipeline for non-destructive archiving, so the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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