cigchat_clear_integration_meta_conversions_api

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the action is DESTRUCTIVE and irreversible, and explains the two-step confirmation process. It also states the required scope. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a destructive tool.

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 three concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose/endpoint, destructive warning with first-step instruction, and required scope. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 destructive operation with one parameter, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how dangerous it is, the confirmation flow, and required permissions. It could optionally detail success responses, but that is not critical for safe use.

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 schema description for 'confirm' already thoroughly explains the confirmation token flow, achieving high coverage. The tool description repeats this guidance but adds little new semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 Meta Conversions Api integration'. It includes the HTTP DELETE method and explicitly names the specific integration, distinguishing it from other clear_integration_* siblings by the resource name.

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 clear context for usage: 'Call once without `confirm` to get an impact statement first' and requires 'Manage Team' scope. It also warns of destructiveness. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as the corresponding get_integration_* tool or when not to use it.

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