Undeploy integration artifact

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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds value by clarifying the nature of the destructiveness: it removes the artifact from runtime rather than deleting the artifact definition itself. This contextualizes the destructive action and correctly aligns with the annotation, with no contradiction.

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?

A single 13-word sentence that front-loads the action, uses a parenthetical to clarify semantics, and states the required input. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition of the title or 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 one-parameter tool with a destructive annotation and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what the action does, the destructive nature, and what identifier to pass. The only notable omissions are how to discover the runtime ID (e.g., via get_integration_runtime_artifacts) and that deployment can be reversed with the deploy sibling, which are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare 'id' string parameter. It does add meaning by specifying that the ID is the 'runtime ID' rather than a package or flow ID, but it does not explain what a runtime ID looks like or how to obtain one, leaving partial ambiguity for an agent.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Undeploy'/'remove from runtime') with a specific resource ('integration artifact') and states the key identifying dimension ('by its runtime ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools: deploy_integration_artifact is the inverse, upload/download handle file transfer, and get/search tools handle discovery. The parenthetical 'remove from runtime' further disambiguates it from permanent deletion.

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?

Usage is only implied: the verb 'undeploy' signals this is the tool to remove an artifact from runtime, and mentioning 'runtime ID' hints that a prior discovery call is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or mention of alternatives like deploy_integration_artifact for reversing the action, so the agent must infer the tool-selection logic.

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