Integrations: Delete an Integration Hook

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds value beyond them: the required auth mechanism (User API key in the `api-access-token` header) and the permanence wording. It doesn't cover error/permission behavior, but the auth disclosure is genuine added context.

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?

Front-loads the action and endpoint, then layers auth and destructiveness notes concisely. The trailing multilingual/digit boilerplate is generic padding but not enough to derail the structure.

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-param delete with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to call it: identity, endpoint, auth, and destructiveness. Missing only permission/failure behavior, which is a minor gap here.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a relevant encoding nuance: IDs and numbers may be submitted with Persian or Arabic-Indic digits, which directly affects how the required hook_id/account_id values can be formatted.

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+resource ('Delete an Integration Hook') and pins it to the exact endpoint DELETE /integrations/hooks/{hook_id}, which cleanly separates it from the sibling create/update/list integration hook tools.

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?

It signals destructiveness ('this permanently deletes the resource'), which implies caution, but gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance (e.g. prefer update_integration_hook to modify, delete only to remove permanently). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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