edubase_delete_integration

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the important behavioral requirement of obtaining user confirmation before deleting, which is not captured by the annotations. It does not describe additional side effects, but the destructive nature is already disclosed structurally, so the description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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 two short sentences with no unnecessary words. The action is stated first, followed by the critical safety instruction. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, this description is nearly complete. The only missing context is what happens after deletion or whether there are any cascading effects, but the destructiveHint annotation already communicates the risk. Overall, the agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'integration' parameter already documented as an 'integration identification string.' The description itself adds no additional parameter-level detail. Since the schema fully covers parameter semantics, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Remove an integration.' This is direct and unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools like edubase_get_integration, edubase_post_integration, and edubase_patch_integration. It is slightly redundant with the tool name since 'delete' and 'remove' are synonyms, but it still clearly conveys the action.

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 includes an explicit usage requirement: 'Confirm with the user first.' This tells the agent when it is appropriate to invoke the tool and implies a prerequisite before deletion. It does not discuss alternatives or explicitly contrast with related integration tools, but for a destructive operation the confirmation guidance is the most critical usage signal.

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