Delete integration

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description reveals that the first call is non-destructive (returns preview) and a confirm_token is required for actual deletion. This adds valuable behavioral context not present in 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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose and critical usage pattern. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 covers the essential behavioral nuance (two-step deletion) but omits parameter details for reason and dry_run. For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema, this leaves some contextual gaps that could mislead an agent.

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 description coverage is 40%, but the description only indirectly explains the confirm_token parameter via the two-step process. Other parameters (reason, dry_run) are not explicitly described, leaving gaps. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for low schema coverage.

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 the tool removes an integration from the server, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_channel) by explicitly targeting integrations.

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 explains a safe two-step calling pattern: first call returns a preview and confirm_token, second call with token actually deletes. This provides clear context for usage, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use.

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