guild_delete_integration

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds significant behavioral context: the tool also disconnects associated webhooks, is gated by ConfirmRequired, requires both __confirm:true and MCP_DRY_RUN=false to actually execute. This goes beyond the structured fields and gives the agent crucial safety information.

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 compact and well-structured with clear labels (Purpose, When to use, Returns, Security). Every sentence provides essential information—purpose, use case, output shape, and safety gate—without any filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, four parameters, and existing annotations and output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, side effects, return value, and confirmation requirements. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptive text for every parameter (guild_id, __confirm, audit_reason, integration_id). The description does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, only restates the confirmation requirement already present in the __confirm field. 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?

The description immediately states 'Delete an integration from a guild' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning the destructive side effect of disconnecting associated webhooks. This clearly identifies what the tool does and separates it from other delete-type 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 'When to use' section identifies a concrete scenario (remove stale or compromised third-party integration) and the security requirement clarifies prerequisites. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or point to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to make a reasonable selection.

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