cigchat_clear_integration_ainvented

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly flags the tool as DESTRUCTIVE: irreversible, requires a specific scope, and describes the confirmation process to prevent accidental deletion. This goes beyond basic safety labeling and gives the agent essential operational context.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then clearly states the destructive nature, the confirmation flow, and the required scope. No unnecessary words 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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: what it does, its destructive/irreversible nature, the required scope, and the two-step confirmation workflow. The schema handles the parameter details. The sibling context includes clear counterparts for other integrations, making this description sufficient for an agent to select and 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 fully describes the `confirm` parameter, including its purpose and the required workflow. The description's mention of calling without `confirm` reinforces the schema but adds no new parameter information. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score 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 clearly states 'Clear the config of Ainvented integration', using a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_integration_ainvented and set_integration_ainvented, as well as clear_integration tools for other integrations.

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?

Provides explicit two-step usage: call without `confirm` to get an impact statement, then pass the confirmation token after human approval. Also notes the required 'Manage Team' scope. Does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'use get_integration_ainvented to view config or set_integration_ainvented to update', but the usage flow is clear.

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