archive_pipeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'deactivate/archive' without detailing reversibility, effects on running processes, required permissions, or return values. This is minimal behavior information.

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 two sentences: the first states the action, the second provides parameter guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy and clear front-loading of purpose.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose and parameter source adequately. However, it omits behavior after archiving (e.g., whether it is reversible, if any confirmation/errors are returned), leaving the agent with some uncertainty about the tool's full effect.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining that template_id must be the 'id' field from list_pipelines, explicitly warning against using 'pipeline_id'. This adds critical semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Deactivate/archive') and the resource ('a workflow pipeline template'). It is specific enough to distinguish itself from sibling tools like create_pipeline or update_pipeline, though it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives.

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 provides a crucial usage lesson: 'MUST use the 'id' field from list_pipelines, NOT 'pipeline_id''. This guides the agent on the correct prerequisite source for the parameter, giving clear context for invocation. However, it doesn't discuss when to avoid this tool or alternatives.

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