Contract Testing: Delete Integration

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

Severe contradiction: description says 'Delete' (destructive) but annotations set readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This misleads the agent about the tool's safety profile. No additional behavioral details (e.g., irreversibility, permissions) are provided.

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?

Description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it redundantly lists parameters already defined in the schema. The structure is acceptable but not tightly optimized.

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?

For a delete tool with no output schema and minimal annotations (despite contradictions), the description lacks details on consequences, reversal, or required permissions. The context is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and the description merely repeats the schema's parameter descriptions. No additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('a specific consumer-provider integration'). The verb-resource pair is specific and distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_all_integrations' and 'delete_pacticipant'.

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 when-not-to-use advice, and no prerequisites mentioned. Sibling tools include other delete operations, but no differentiation is provided.

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