cigchat_clear_integration_calude

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It explicitly warns 'DESTRUCTIVE: irreversible', states the required 'Manage Team' scope, and explains the confirmation flow. This exceeds typical descriptions for destructive operations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences cover purpose, destructive nature, confirmation workflow, and auth requirement. Every clause adds essential information with no redundancy or filler.

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 critical context for a destructive operation: what it does, irreversibility, required scope, and confirmation protocol. It does not detail the impact statement's contents or post-clear state, but for a one-parameter destructive tool with a clear workflow, this is highly 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the `confirm` parameter in detail, including the need to call without it first and show the human the impact statement. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline 3 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 action ('Clear the config of CaludeAi integration') with a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like set_integration_calude (which configures) and get_integration_calude (which retrieves).

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 explicit usage guidance, especially the two-step confirmation process: call without `confirm` first, then pass the token after human approval. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., use set_integration_calude to update), but the destructive context makes the intended use clear.

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