delete_integration_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does a good job: it discloses that entities, button mappings, and page items are removed, while the driver is preserved. It also hints at a preview step ('read the preview'). It stops short of discussing reversibility or permissions, but the main destructive scope is clearly disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the core action, the use context, and the important side effects without redundancy. The most important scoping information ('keeping the driver') is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 main action and side effects well, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, with no annotations and no parameter-level guidance, the agent is left to guess at the meaning of dry_run and host, which matters for a deletion tool. This prevents the definition from being fully complete.

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 0%, and the description mentions none of the parameters (integration_id, host, dry_run). The agent must infer integration_id from the tool name and cannot learn from the description what dry_run or host do. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Remove one configured instance and its entities') and immediately distinguishes this tool from delete_integration by stating 'keeping the driver.' It also identifies the niche purpose ('teardown for firmware-shipped drivers'), making its role unmistakable among many sibling tools.

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 explicit context for when this tool is appropriate: 'The teardown for firmware-shipped drivers.' It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name an alternative like delete_integration, but the 'keeping the driver' contrast strongly implies the intended boundary.

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