delete_d_integration_integration_credentials_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the HTTP method (DELETE) and implies a destructive action, but it does not mention irreversibility, authentication requirements, side effects, or idempotency. The description also oddly tells the caller to provide 'filters and pagination in query' for a delete operation, which is unusual and unexplained, adding confusion rather than transparency.

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 concise, with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and the HTTP call, and the second explains parameter placement. It is front-loaded with the primary action. No unnecessary fluff, though it could be better structured by splitting the instruction into a clearer list.

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?

Given the tool is a delete operation with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify whether path_params, query, and headers are required or optional (despite the schema marking them nullable with defaults). It also lacks information about authentication, preconditions (e.g., whether the credential must exist), and any consequences of deletion. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but the operational context is still thin.

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 provides only generic object types with no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description adds some value by explaining that path_params should contain route IDs, query holds filters and pagination, and headers holds request headers. However, it does not describe the body parameter at all, and it leaves the exact structure of query/headers unspecified. This is a moderate compensation for the schema gap but not comprehensive.

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 'Delete integration credential' as the primary action, which is a specific verb and resource. It also names the exact HTTP call (DELETE /d/integration/integration_credentials/{id}), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from the many other delete tools in the sibling list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains how to structure the call (path_params, query, headers) but does not mention conditions under which this delete operation is appropriate, nor does it reference any sibling tools or exclusion criteria. For an agent, there is no explicit direction on choosing this specific delete tool over other delete operations.

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