Delete a pipeline

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

Annotations already mark the tool destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it destroys logs and attached data, cannot target running pipelines, and requires a two-step flow. This goes beyond the annotations by specifying exactly what gets removed and the precondition.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the destructive scope, the running-pipeline constraint, and the two-step nature. It is front-loaded with the action and consequence, with no filler.

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 output schema and full parameter schema, the description provides enough context for selection and invocation. The only minor gap is that 'Two-step' is not fully elaborated, though the confirm_token parameter description and schema make the flow recoverable.

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 fully documents repo_id, number, and confirm_token. The description's 'Two-step' hint adds some process context around confirm_token, but it does not materially enrich parameter understanding beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Removes a pipeline and everything attached to it, including its logs.' This clearly distinguishes it from log-only tools like delete_pipeline_logs and from cancel_pipeline, while the destructive scope is explicit.

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?

It gives explicit guidance for a key edge case: 'A running pipeline cannot be deleted — cancel it first,' which points the agent toward the cancel_pipeline sibling. It does not enumerate other alternatives like delete_pipeline_logs for log-only removal, but the core usage context is clear.

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