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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent, and destructive behavior. The description adds that only metadata is saved and that credential values and live connection checks are not involved, which prevents misuse. However, it does not elaborate on overwrite/destructive impact, auth requirements, or what happens to existing metadata, so it adds only moderate value beyond 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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence adds a useful scoping clarification without bloating the definition.

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 9-parameter, 6-required mutation with expected_version, idempotency, nested credential field objects, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks crucial parameter semantics and does not indicate what the save operation returns or how version conflicts are handled.

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 44%, so the description needs to compensate, but it does not. It mentions description, instructions, and fields at a high level, yet leaves company, environment, integration ID, expected_version, and idempotency_key largely unexplained beyond the schema.

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 (Save) and resource (custom integration) plus the metadata fields being saved: description, setup instructions, and credential field names. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as summer_credentials_set or summer_integrations_setup_prompt.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. The note that it saves metadata only, without credential values or a live connection check, is a useful boundary, but it does not tell the agent to use summer_credentials_set for values or summer_integrations_setup_prompt for setup guidance.

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