Delete Voice Integration

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what the annotations already disclose (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). It does not mention permanence, cascading effects, or potential failures, so it contributes no extra transparency.

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 very concise and front-loaded with the core action. The Args block duplicates schema information unnecessarily, but the overall structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter operation, the description is adequate. Annotations and output schema cover the destructiveness and return value, but the description lacks context on side effects or when deletion is appropriate. It fits the tool's low complexity.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It provides a minimal definition ('The integration's id'), which clarifies the parameter's role but adds little beyond the schema's title. This is minimally sufficient for a single simple parameter.

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 action ('Delete'), the resource ('voice provider integration'), and the scope ('by id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_voice_integration or list_voice_integrations, which perform different operations on the same resource.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_voice_integration) or any prerequisites/exclusions. It only implies usage for deletion, leaving the decision solely to the agent's intent.

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