Undeploy integration artifact

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds concrete behavioral consequences: it stops message processing immediately and cannot be undone. It also specifies the environment ('live CPI tenant'). This adds value beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 a single, densely informative sentence. It front-loads the destructive warning, states the action, and includes key constraints (immediate, irreversible) 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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the destructive nature, the description fully explains the action, its effect, and the parameter's meaning. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The schema provides only a bare 'id' string with 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the id is the 'runtime ID' of the artifact, giving the parameter meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 verb (undeploy/remove), the resource (integration artifact), and the context (live CPI tenant, by runtime ID). It distinguishes from siblings like deploy_integration_artifact by specifying removal from runtime.

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 clearly implies when to use it (to stop message processing and remove from runtime) and emphasizes the irreversible nature, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Since the sibling deploy_integration_artifact exists, the contrast is implicit, but not explicitly stated.

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