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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, idempotent=false, readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: the required permission scope, the fact that the provider-side token is not revoked, and the deleted=false no-op return. It stops short of full detail (e.g. no mention of partial-failure behavior), so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Four tight clauses, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then permission, then alternatives, then exclusions and return. No filler; every sentence 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?

With annotations covering the destructive/non-idempotent profile and an output schema present, the description supplies exactly the missing context an agent needs: auth requirement, alternatives, scope of deletion, and the deleted=false edge case.

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 the single provider param has an enum plus its own description, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides; 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 precise verb+resource+scope: removing this organization's stored credential for a third-party provider. It is unmistakably distinct from integrations_list and integrations_set, and it clarifies what is NOT deleted (imported scene assets) up front.

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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives: use integrations_list to inspect configuration or integrations_set to replace a token. It also states the prerequisite (owner/admin with deployments:admin) and the negative consequence (subsequent calls need setup again), which fully frames when and when-not to call it.

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