delete_integration

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

Adds substantial context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: the action is irreversible, stops the org-level connection, and breaks dependent virtual keys, providers, and workspace access. This gives the agent concrete consequences needed before invoking a destructive mutation.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the critical irreversible-impact warning. No wasted wording.

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 mutation with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the important behavioral context: irreversibility and the specific dependent resources affected. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether to call it.

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 single slug parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains it. The description mentions deletion by slug but adds no further syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond the schema.

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 and resource: delete an integration by slug. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related sibling tools such as delete_mcp_integration or delete_integration_model.

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 makes clear this is an irreversible deletion and implies caution by listing downstream breakage. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives like update_integration, or when not to use it.

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