forms_hooks_deleteDelete an integration group and its integrations and conditions from a Yandex 360 form by providing the form ID and integration group ID.
Delete an integration group together with its integrations and conditions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hook_id | Yes | Integration group id (integer) from hooks_list. | |
| survey_id | Yes | Form id (24-char hex), from ``surveys_list``. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.67.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that the integration group's integrations and conditions are deleted along with it, going beyond what the annotations convey.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and its cascading effect.
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 two-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is deleted and that related integrations and conditions go with it. It could still state irreversibility more explicitly, but the annotations largely cover that.
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 100%, and both parameters (hook_id and survey_id) are fully documented in the schema with their expected formats and sources. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('integration group'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like forms_hooks_update, forms_hooks_get, and forms_conditions_hook_delete by clarifying that the deletion cascades to integrations and conditions.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as disabling or updating the integration group, nor does it state prerequisites or warn about irreversibility. It only implies usage through the verb 'Delete'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.