iaas_delete_integration

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond them: the operation is asynchronous, implying a request-tracker style response rather than immediate completion. It does not, however, say what is destroyed downstream (e.g. associated cloud accounts/zones) or that the returned request must be polled.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the first two lines are near-duplicates ('Delete an integration' / 'Delete an integration with a given id asynchronously'), so a full sentence is spent restating the same claim; the only new information is the trailing endpoint and the word 'asynchronously'.

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 two-parameter destructive delete with full annotation and schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient: the agent knows what is deleted, by id, and that it is async. It is missing the follow-up semantics of an async delete (what request id comes back and how to track it) and any note on cascading effects, which matter for a destructive call with no output schema.

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%, so both `id` and `apiVersion` are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes that an id is required and adds no format or versioning nuance beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an integration') and adds the scoping detail 'with a given id' plus the underlying endpoint. It does not differentiate from the many other iaas_delete_* siblings (cloud accounts, storage profiles, zones) or from its counterpart iaas_update_integration_async, so an agent gets a clear purpose but no routing help.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g. detaching vs deleting, or deleting a cloud account instead of an integration). The only contextual clue is 'asynchronously', which describes behavior, not selection criteria.

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