Delete Composio Auth Config

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

Annotations already indicate destructive (destructiveHint: true), not read-only (readOnlyHint: false), and idempotent (idempotentHint: true). The description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, irreversibility, or dependency impacts. It simply restates the action.

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, focused sentence that conveys the operation without any redundancy 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 delete tool with strong annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description and schema together provide adequate information. However, no mention of consequences for dependent connections or return values slightly limits completeness.

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 single parameter provider_id is already fully described in the schema ('Composio provider id') with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning, but the basic meaning is sufficiently clear.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete'), identifies the resource ('Composio auth config'), and scopes it 'for a provider'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lyzr_delete_composio_connection or lyzr_create_composio_auth_config.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lyzr_delete_composio_connection or lyzr_get_composio_auth_config. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts.

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