Uninstall widget

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces and expands on this by specifying that the destruction targets 'that integration'. This adds context about the scope of the destructive action without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and danger.

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 simple one-parameter tool with a destructive annotation and no required output schema, the description sufficiently covers the key aspects: what it does, what parameter is needed, and that it is destructive. Minor gaps like reversibility or permissions are not critical given the annotations.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the sole parameter: uninstall occurs 'by code', which maps directly to widget_code. This provides essential meaning that the bare schema lacks, though it could offer more detail on sourcing the code.

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 'uninstall' with a clear resource 'widget' and identifies the method 'by code'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kommo_widgets_install, kommo_widgets_list, and kommo_widgets_get.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (to uninstall a widget) and adds a warning that it is 'destructive for that integration', which guides the agent to use caution. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the single-purpose nature makes the context clear.

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