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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description earns credit by adding what annotations cannot say: the blast radius (side panel and buttons vanish from every ticket), the explicit non-effect (no server-side change), irreversibility, and an owner-only authorization requirement.

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?

Five short sentences, no filler, and the ordering is deliberate: action, consequence, non-consequence, risk, authorization, human check. Everything front-loaded where an agent's attention lands 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 safety and no output schema, the description supplies the remaining gaps: scope of effect, irreversibility, and permission requirements. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it 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?

The single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its uuid type and the sibling tool (list_integrations) that produces it. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is 100%.

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 ("Remove an integration") and immediately scopes it with what disappears ("side panel and buttons disappear from every ticket") and what does not change ("Nothing on the workspace's server changes"). That effect-level detail lets an agent separate it from update_integration, test_integration, and remove_integration_address without opening any schema.

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?

"Irreversible. Owner only. Ask the person first." gives explicit preconditions and a confirmation step, which is exactly the guidance needed for a destructive tool. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. update_integration to change rather than remove), so it is clear context without full routing.

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