Delete an integration

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: 'may notify recipients or change tenant data' and the need for operator write opt-in and confirm:true. This explains real-world consequences and prerequisites that an agent would not infer from the schema alone.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, then the endpoint, requirements, and side effects. The API reference URL is somewhat extraneous but does not bloat the text. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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 delete tool with annotations covering destructive behavior and schema covering parameters, the description provides the endpoint, prerequisites, and side effects. It does not mention the return value or explicitly state irreversibility, but those are fairly implied by destructiveHint and the delete action. Overall, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 67%, covering path and confirm. The description contributes little beyond the schema: 'Body fields: none' is redundant since no body property exists, and the confirm requirement is already described in the schema. It does not elaborate on planId or integrationId semantics, so it stays at the baseline for medium coverage.

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 begins with 'Delete an integration', a specific verb and resource, and repeats the REST endpoint that identifies the exact operation. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that get, create, or modify integrations, and from deletes of other resource types.

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 states prerequisites ('Requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true') and hints at potential side effects, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., modify instead of delete) or provide exclusion conditions, so usage guidance is only implied.

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