Delete pipeline stage

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint: true and openWorldHint: true. The description's 'Destructive' label only repeats the annotation without adding new behavioral context such as cascading effects on deals, irreversibility, permissions, or what happens after deletion. The description adds no value beyond the structured annotation.

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 concise with two sentences: one for the action and one for the destructive warning. Both sentences earn their place with no fluff. However, it borders on under-specification, though for the purpose clarity dimension it remains focused.

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?

While the tool is simple (2 integer params, no output schema), it is a destructive action. The description fails to explain the impact of deletion (e.g., whether deals are affected, if it's permanent, or what the response looks like). The annotations cover the destructive hint but not the operational consequences, leaving a significant 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 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the two parameters (pipeline_id and status_id). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify the relationship between pipeline and stage, nor the expected values. There is no compensation for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'a stage from a pipeline', which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like kommo_pipelines_delete (delete a pipeline) and kommo_stages_update (update a stage). The 'Destructive' warning further reinforces the action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of conditions or prerequisites, and no explicit exclusions. The description merely states the action without contextual advice, which is insufficient for an agent choosing among the many stage and pipeline tools.

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