cigchat_clear_integration_openai

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the destructive nature ('DESTRUCTIVE: irreversible'), the two-step confirmation behavior, and required permissions. It explains the 'confirm' parameter's role and the impact statement flow, providing transparency about what happens before the actual deletion.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose and danger warning. It includes the HTTP method, destructive flag, confirmation workflow, and scope requirement in just two sentences, with no wasted words.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all necessary contexts: what it does, how destructive it is, the exact invocation sequence, and the required permission. It is complete enough for an agent to select and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the parameter 'confirm' is already well-described in the schema. The description adds workflow context ('Call once without confirm...') but does not introduce additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 clearly states the action: 'Clear the config of OpenAi integration', with a specific verb ('Clear') and resource ('config of OpenAi integration'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_integration_openai and set_integration_openai, and the HTTP method [DELETE] reinforces the intent.

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 clear usage guidance for the destructive workflow: 'Call once without confirm to get an impact statement first' and then pass the token once approved. It also specifies the required 'Manage Team' scope. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, though the sibling names make this inferable.

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