ghl_opportunity_delete_pipeline

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description earns credit beyond that by spelling out the cascade ('all opportunities across every stage will be removed'), the irreversibility, and the required OAuth scope (pipelines.write).

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its destructive scope, followed by a warning and then the endpoint/scope metadata. No sentence is wasted and the most important fact comes first.

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 single-parameter destructive mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the cascade behavior, irreversibility, and auth scope an agent needs. Only light guidance on alternatives is missing.

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% and pipelineId is documented in the schema, so the description needn't restate it. It adds nothing further about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Permanently deletes a pipeline') and immediately defines scope: 'all opportunities within it.' This clearly separates it from ghl_opportunity_delete (deletes one opportunity) and ghl_opportunity_update_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?

Adds a precondition - 'Ensure you have migrated or exported any opportunities before calling' - which implies caution and timing. However, it never names an alternative (e.g., update pipeline instead of delete, or delete individual opportunities first), so the when-to-use-vs-sibling guidance is only implied.

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