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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot express: a referential-integrity precondition that makes deletion fail while alert rules point at the integration. It stops short of saying the deletion is irreversible or what a failure response looks like.

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, no filler. The action is front-loaded and the constraint follows immediately, with the recovery path attached to the constraint rather than in a separate paragraph.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly, including the main failure mode. A note on irreversibility would close the last 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the schema carries the load. The description adds only "by ID", which restates the integration_id schema text and says nothing about how to choose the `app` enum value.

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 and resource ("Delete an integration by ID") that unambiguously distinguishes it from update_integration, get_integration and list_integrations. It does not need to name siblings because the resource+verb pairing already disambiguates within the delete_* family.

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?

It gives a concrete when-not condition: integrations referenced by alert rules cannot be deleted, and it names the remedies (delete the alert rules or move them). What's missing is a pointer to update_integration when the caller actually wanted to modify rather than remove the integration.

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