delete_integration

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds value by noting 'requires write permission' – a prerequisite not present in structured metadata. It does not describe post-conditions, but given the annotations, this is adequate.

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?

One sentence with a scoped parenthetical; every word earns its place, front-loads the action and target.

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 single-param destructive operation with annotations covering idempotency/destructiveness, the description supplies purpose, scope, and permission requirement. No output schema exists, but a delete operation's return is not critical. Complete enough.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter (integration_id with description). The description adds 'by ID' which is already in the parameter name, so no additional semantic is provided. Baseline 3 applies.

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'), resource ('integration'), and key identifier ('by ID'). Explicitly covers all integration types, which distinguishes it from more specific integration creation/update tools and other delete_* siblings like delete_device or delete_recipient_group.

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?

Says 'Works for any integration type (http, slack-2, pagerduty, etc.)', which tells the agent when this is the right delete tool. It lacks an explicit alternative recommendation, but the all-types statement is sufficient guidance given no delete_http_integration sibling exists.

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