delete_integration_package

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

The description only says 'delete', which implies destructive behavior. With no annotations and no details on side effects (e.g., whether related artifacts are also removed, permission requirements, or reversibility), the description fails to disclose important behavioral traits.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it lacks structure such as notes on return values or behavior. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation but could be more informative without adding length.

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?

Although the tool has a single parameter and an output schema, the description does not mention the output or any post-deletion state. The lack of behavioral context and parameter guidance makes it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 only parameter (package_id) has no description in the schema, and the tool description adds no explanation about how to obtain its value, format, or context. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

Description clearly states the action (delete) and resource (integration package) from the Design workspace. However, it does not differentiate from sibling deletion tools like delete_integration_flow, which could lead to confusion.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, conditions, or warnings about cascading effects (e.g., if flows depend on the package) are provided.

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