Delete a pipeline by selector

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: the tool is refused under an Orchestra API key and only runs for an OAuth-signed-in user, and it enforces a one-selector rule. It does not say whether deletion is reversible or what happens to dependent runs.

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 doing distinct work: the action, the selector rule, and the auth precondition. Front-loaded with the action and 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?

For a destructive tool with no output schema and zero required parameters, the description covers the two things an agent most needs: how to address the target and the credential prerequisite. It omits irreversibility and side effects on pipeline runs, which is the main remaining gap.

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 only 20% (only X-Orchestra-Account-Id is documented in the schema), so the description carries real weight. It explains that exactly one of pipeline_id, alias, or repository+yaml_path must be supplied and how those selectors pair up, which the schema alone cannot convey since all five properties are optional and nullable with no descriptions. It stops short of format details like the UUID4 requirement for pipeline_id.

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 (Delete) and resource (a pipeline), plus the selector mechanism. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling mutation tools such as pause_pipeline or migrate_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?

It states the invocation constraint (exactly one selector, and how to combine repository with yaml_path) and the authentication gate, which tells the agent when the call will succeed. It gives no guidance on when to delete versus pause or otherwise retire a pipeline, so usage is only partially framed.

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