ncloud_delete_pipeline

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds value by noting the action is 'Permanently delete' (irreversibility) and the confirm=true guardrail, which is essential behavior not captured in annotations. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the safety requirements.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The warning emoji and word 'Destructive' front-load the critical safety context, followed by the action and the required confirmation flag. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and scannable.

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 simple destructive delete operation with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It communicates the permanent effect, the confirmation mechanism, and the resource type. It could mention how to obtain the projectId (e.g., via list_pipelines) or state the expected return, but these are minor gaps given the annotations and schema.

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%, with both parameters ('projectId' and 'confirm') already described clearly. The description's mention of 'Set confirm=true to execute' is redundant with the schema's confirm description, adding no new semantic information. Therefore it earns the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Permanently delete') and the resource ('a SourcePipeline pipeline'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling pipeline tools (e.g., create, update, run, cancel) by being the delete operation. The mention of 'confirm=true' adds a critical execution detail without blurring the core purpose.

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 implies the use case: when you need to permanently remove a SourcePipeline pipeline. It clearly states the destructive nature and the required confirm flag, giving context for when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., canceling a running pipeline vs. deleting a definition), but the intent is clear enough.

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