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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=false, but the description adds substantial non-redundant context: what is destroyed (the stored credential), downstream consequence (subsequent calls requiring it need setup again), auth requirements, the deleted=false return case, and the explicit boundaries of the deletion. This is exactly the value-add expected above the annotation baseline.

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 core effect and its consequence, then prerequisites, then scope boundaries. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; the website note is the only mildly marginal addition.

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 destructive one-parameter tool, the description covers effect, authorization, boundaries, and the edge-case return value, while annotations and an output schema handle safety flags and return shape. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 the single 3-param provider enum is fully documented as 'Configured integration to remove.' The description doesn't add syntax or selection guidance beyond the schema, 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 ('Remove') and a precise resource ('this organization's stored credential for a third-party asset/generation provider'), which is clearly distinct from integrations_set (writing) and integrations_list (reading). An agent can route confidently without opening schemas.

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?

Gives prerequisites (owner/admin with deployments:admin) and an explicit inspection path ('Use integrations_list to inspect configuration'). It also clarifies a scope exclusion (doesn't delete imported assets or revoke provider tokens) and points to the website for replacing keys. No explicit 'when not to use' statement, so 4 rather than 5.

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