payments_delete_integration

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Deleting' is consistent but adds no extra behavioral context. It does not mention that deletion is permanent, that it may affect associated orders or subscriptions, or that it is idempotent (despite idempotentHint=true). The description adds no value beyond what annotations already convey.

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 a single, concise phrase with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, but for a tool with minimal parameters, the brevity is not distracting. It earns a 4 for efficiency, though not a 5 because it omits essential context.

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 action with no output schema, the description should explain side effects, reversibility, and what the agent can expect. It does not mention that deletion is irreversible, nor does it indicate what happens to related data (e.g., orders, subscriptions). The description also fails to state that the integration must exist or that deletion may fail if in use. This leaves the agent with insufficient guidance for a critical operation.

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 schema fully documents the single parameter (locationId) with a clear description and default behavior, and schema coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Deleting') and the resource ('an existing integration'). While it doesn't explicitly mention 'payments', the tool name and sibling context make it clear this is for payment integrations. It distinguishes from other delete tools by resource, though not by scope. It's specific enough for an agent to grasp the core purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, what conditions apply, or when to prefer alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an integration ID, or any warning about deleting an integration in active use. The agent is left without context on appropriate invocation scenarios.

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