tailscale_delete_posture_integrationPermanently deletes a Tailscale posture integration by integration ID. Use this irreversible action only when you need to remove the integration from your tailnet.
Delete a posture integration. This is irreversible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| integrationId | Yes | The posture integration ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description reinforces this with 'irreversible', which is useful emphasis, but adds nothing about cascading effects (e.g., devices relying on the integration), auth requirements, or error behavior.
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 short sentences, verb-resource front-loaded and the hazard warning placed immediately after. Nothing redundant or padded.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and explicit annotations, the description covers the essentials and needs no output schema explanation. However, it omits any note on dependencies or what breaks after deletion, which would matter for an irreversible operation.
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% for the single integrationId parameter and its description already explains it is the ID to delete. The description adds no format, prefix, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (posture integration) in the first sentence, so an agent can immediately distinguish it from the create/update/get/list posture-integration siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the action is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus the sibling update_posture_integration or get_posture_integration, and no prerequisites such as required permissions. 'This is irreversible' is a warning, not usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.