Delete an ad-network integration

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, and readOnly=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the disabled-state precondition, but it does not explain what data or side effects accompany deletion.

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 definition is two short sentences with the core action and prerequisite front-loaded. There is no redundant or low-value text.

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?

Annotations cover the destructive safety profile and the description covers the disabled precondition, but the lone required parameter remains unexplained and the description does not clarify deletion effects. For a destructive mutation tool, this is adequate but incomplete.

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 0% description coverage and one required parameter, connection_id. The description never mentions connection_id or clarifies whether it is an integration ID, connection ID, or external network identifier, so parameter meaning is only weakly implied.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Delete ... integration.' It clearly differs from create/list/update siblings by naming deletion, though it does not explicitly distinguish ad-network scope or name alternatives.

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?

It provides a clear usage condition and prerequisite: only disabled integrations can be deleted, and enabled ones must be disabled first. It does not name the mechanism or tool for disabling, so an agent must infer the next step.

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