integrations_remove_integration

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It does not disclose whether removal is reversible, requires confirmation, or affects related configurations. The term 'uninstall' implies permanent removal but no further details.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, front-loading the main action. However, it may be too brief given the complexity and lack of supplementary structured fields.

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?

While output schema exists, the description does not mention return values or side effects. For a simple removal tool, the description is minimally adequate but could include success/error indications.

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 has one parameter (entry_id) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain its meaning, format, or requirement. The description adds no semantic value 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 (uninstall) an integration config entry', using a specific verb (remove/uninstall) and resource, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like disable or update.

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 such as 'integrations_disable_integration' or 'integrations_update_integration_entry'. The description lacks context for agent decision-making.

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