conduyt_ai_task_pipeline_cleanup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that nothing is persisted, that the tool returns stale deals and what WOULD happen, and that mutating execution is restricted to human sessions. This is exactly the safety and side-effect context an agent needs before calling a preview tool.

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 three sentences, front-loads the critical PREVIEW ONLY constraint, and wastes no words. It efficiently covers purpose, behavior, and restriction.

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 five-parameter preview tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential non-schema details: no persistence, preview-only return content, and the restriction that agents cannot execute mutations. The schema fully covers parameter semantics, so no critical context is missing for correct invocation.

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 input schema already documents pipelineId, action, staleDays, tagId, and targetStageId. The description adds only high-level action context and does not provide parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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: preview finding stale deals in a pipeline, with tagging, moving, notifying, or reporting actions. It clearly establishes the PREVIEW ONLY scope, which separates it from mutating siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 gives clear usage context: this is for previewing stale-deal cleanup, and executing a mutating action is intentionally restricted to a human session. It also states that agent/API-key callers can only preview, which is a strong when-not constraint. It does not explicitly direct users to sibling alternatives for related tasks.

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