cigchat_clear_integration_woocommerce

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is destructive and irreversible, outlines the confirmation workflow, and specifies the required auth scope. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure for a mutation 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 two sentences: the first states the action and the destructive irreversible nature; the second covers the confirmation workflow and required scope. Every word earns its place, with no fluff.

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 destructive nature and the presence of a confirmation parameter, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the action, the safety protocol, the required scope, and the parameter flow. The lack of an output schema is acceptable because the tool's response is an impact statement, which the description implicitly covers via the confirmation workflow.

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 description of `confirm` already explains the two-step confirmation process in detail. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('Clear the config of WooCommerce integration') and includes the HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings like set_integration_woocommerce and get_integration_woocommerce through the verb 'clear' and the resource 'config'.

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 when-to-use and how-to-use guidance: call once without `confirm` to get an impact statement, then pass the confirm token. It also states the required token scope ('Manage Team'). This clearly instructs the agent on the safe invocation sequence.

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