Delete integration

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

Annotations mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavioral detail: the first call changes nothing and returns a preview plus confirm_token, and only the repeated call with that token actually deletes. This goes well beyond the annotations and prevents accidental destructive actions. No contradiction exists.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause earns its place by explaining safety and the two-step mechanism. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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?

The description effectively conveys the safety mechanism and the preview/confirm_token flow, which is the most important behavioral aspect. However, it does not explain the dry_run parameter, the contents of the preview, or what the final deletion call returns. Given the lack of an output schema, these omissions leave minor gaps, but the overall deletion flow is understandable.

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?

Schema covers guild and integration_id with descriptions, but reason, dry_run, and confirm_token lack schema descriptions. The description explains confirm_token's role and alludes to the preview flow, but does not clarify the dry_run parameter or what 'reason' is for. With schema coverage at 40%, the description only partially compensates.

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 opens with 'Remove an integration from the server,' which is a specific verb+resource pair that clearly distinguishes this from sibling delete tools like delete_webhook or delete_emoji. It also names the resource type (integration) and the action, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear usage context by stating 'Safe to call directly' and explaining the two-step flow (first call preview, second call deletion). This tells the agent when to invoke it and reassures about accidental damage. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the intent is clear.

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