Delete Integration

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: deactivating dependent views and blocking deletion when used in rules or other integrations. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure for a destructive operation.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the endpoint, and every sentence contributes essential information: purpose, side effects, and deletion constraints. No unnecessary words.

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 simple one-parameter delete tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers the operation, consequences (views deactivated), and constraints (rules/integrations usage), which is sufficient for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema already provides full documentation for the id parameter (type integer, min/max, description). The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics; hence score is at baseline for high 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's purpose: 'Delete an integration' with the endpoint. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling delete tools (e.g., gorgias_delete_customer) and other integration operations.

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 provides clear context that this tool deletes an integration and includes important constraints (views deactivated, cannot delete if used in rules/integrations). It does not explicitly mention alternatives like update or list, but the context is sufficient for most use cases.

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