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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses the permission scope, the critical dry-run-then-confirm behavior, that the first call is a no-op, and that unknown fields are rejected by name. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs and that the annotations alone cannot convey.

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?

Roughly sixty words, front-loaded with the action and the permission requirement, then the two-call protocol in order. No filler sentences; every clause carries operational information.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth, the confirmation protocol, and what the first response contains (summary and confirm_token). The remaining gap is the domain of the inputs: which providers are valid and what values `enabled` takes are absent from both description and schema.

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 coverage is only 33% and the description does not compensate: it never explains what `provider` accepts or what `enabled` means (the schema leaves `enabled` entirely untyped). The only parameter the description clarifies is `confirm_token`, and that is already documented in the schema, so the added value is redundant rather than compensatory.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Turn busy-time import on or off.' An agent can immediately distinguish this from sibling tools like sync_integration or disconnect_integration because it targets a toggle of busy-time import. It falls short of a 5 because it never names or contrasts a sibling alternative explicitly.

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?

Strong procedural guidance is present: it states the two-call pattern, that the first call changes nothing, and that the second call must only follow human agreement. It also states the required scope `integrations:write`. However, it gives no when-not-to-use guidance and does not contrast this tool with alternatives such as sync_integration.

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