edubase_delete_integration

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

The description merely repeats the destructive nature already indicated by the annotation destructiveHint=true. It adds no extra behavioral context such as whether deletion triggers cascading effects, if it can be undone, or if special permissions are required. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description adds no value.

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 very short ('Remove integration.') but lacks informative content. While concise, it is under-specified for a delete operation. The single sentence does not fully earn its place as it repeats the tool name's intent without adding helpful detail.

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 destruction operation with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain post-deletion effects, whether related resources (e.g., integration tags) need to be removed first, or what happens if the integration is in use. The sibling tool edubase_delete_integration_tag suggests dependency, but no guidance is given.

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 input schema provides a description for the 'integration' parameter ('integration identification string'), achieving 100% schema coverage. Per the scoring guidelines, the baseline is 3 when coverage is high. However, the description adds no further meaning about the parameter's format, source, or constraints 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?

The description clearly states 'Remove integration,' specifying the verb (remove) and resource (integration). It distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on other resources (e.g., edubase_delete_question, edubase_delete_exam), but lacks additional context about what kind of integration this refers to.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edubase_patch_integration (update) or edubase_post_integration (create). There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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