delete_mcp_integration

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

Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: irreversible, removes access immediately, cascades to servers. Annotations only mark destructiveHint=true; the description fills in the details.

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, no wasted words. Action and implications front-loaded, making it easy to quickly understand.

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 delete operation, the description covers irreversibility, immediate impact, cascade, and a usage precaution. Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Comprehensive.

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?

The input schema already provides a description for the single parameter 'id' (the integration ID or slug). The tool description does not add further parameter information, so 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?

The description clearly states the action 'Delete an MCP integration and all servers beneath it', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling delete operations like delete_mcp_server by noting the cascade effect.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: after confirming nothing depends on the integration, and warns of irreversibility and immediate access removal. No alternative tools are named, but the caution is sufficient for an irreversible delete.

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