Delete an integration connection

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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the cascade (asset configurations and agent integration mappings are destroyed), the default-connection guard, and the auth mode requirement. These are exactly the consequences an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the destructive scope first and the constraints second. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, it covers consequences, preconditions, and auth mode. It omits failure behavior (e.g., what error surfaces when the default-connection guard trips) and whether the deletion is reversible, which would round it out.

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 33%: the enum and connection_id carry no descriptions, while X-Orchestra-Account-Id is fully documented in the schema. The phrase 'the workspace the credential resolves to' adds useful scoping context, but the description never explains what 'integration' vs 'connection_id' select or their expected format.

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 (delete) and resource (integration connection) plus scope ('from the workspace the credential resolves to') and enumerates the cascade ('asset configurations and agent integration mappings'). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like delete_environment or delete_pipeline without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit blocking conditions: the default connection cannot be deleted while other connections exist, and the call is refused with an API key (OAuth only). It stops short of naming an alternative path (e.g., update_integration_connection or deleting other connections first), so it is clear context plus exclusions rather than full routing.

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