cigchat_clear_integration_xai

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It openly warns that the operation is DESTRUCTIVE and irreversible, mandates a two-step confirmation workflow, and specifies the required OAuth scope. This gives agents the key safety and prerequisite information needed to invoke it responsibly.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive warning and endpoint; all content is necessary, no 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?

For a destructive single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: purpose, confirmation workflow, irreversibility, and auth scope are all covered. The agent knows exactly how to perform a safe delete.

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 covers 100% of parameters, and the confirm schema already explains the confirmation-token workflow. The description's mention of calling without confirm first reinforces but does not add substantially new parameter semantics, so baseline 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 XAi integration') and explicitly identifies the resource, distinguishing it from sibling integration clear/set/get tools. The appended HTTP method and destructive label reinforce specificity.

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 gives explicit operational guidance: call once without confirm to obtain an impact statement, then pass the confirmation token after human approval. It also states the required 'Manage Team' scope, but does not explicitly address when not to use it or name alternatives for inspecting the config before deletion.

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