Delete pipeline

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the context 'cannot be undone,' which reinforces the destructive nature but does not disclose potential cascading effects (e.g., what happens to stages, deals, or associated data). This goes slightly beyond the annotation flag but lacks richer behavioral detail.

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 just two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No fluff or redundant wording, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of destructive annotations, the description is reasonably adequate. However, it omits information about side effects (e.g., whether related stages/deals are deleted), which is significant for a destructive operation. The warning about irreversibility helps, but the openWorldHint is not explained.

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 provides no description for the 'id' parameter (0% coverage), so the description's 'by ID' clarifies that the parameter identifies the pipeline to delete. However, it does not elaborate on how to obtain the ID or special constraints, which is a modest but useful addition.

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 ('Delete'), a specific resource ('pipeline'), and the identification method ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like kommo_pipelines_list, kommo_pipelines_get, kommo_pipelines_create, and kommo_pipelines_update.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as updating instead of deleting. The warning 'Destructive — cannot be undone' is a cautionary note but does not explain appropriate usage context or prerequisites, so it offers minimal usage guidance.

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