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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context by specifying that the operation deletes a stored token and requires owner/admin permissions, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions exist.

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?

The description is two short sentences with zero redundancy. The core action is front-loaded ('Delete a stored third-party source token'), and the permission note is placed immediately after. Every word earns its place.

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 delete operation with one parameter and a destructive hint already set, the description covers the essential information: what is deleted and who can do it. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, making this fairly complete. A minor omission is not explicitly stating that deletion is irreversible, but that is implied by destructiveHint.

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?

There is only one parameter (provider) and its description in the schema ('Configured integration to remove.') is clear and covers 100% of the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles it well.

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 a specific verb (delete) and resource (stored third-party source token), which distinguishes it from integrations_set and integrations_list. The title 'Remove a source integration' reinforces the action.

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 mentions the access prerequisite (owner/admin) but does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like integrations_set or integrations_list. No explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are given.

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