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

The parenthetical that omitted credentials keep their stored values is genuinely useful partial-update semantics that the schema and annotations don't convey. However, annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description doesn't explain what the destructive aspect is (e.g., credential overwrite, breaking a live integration) or what state changes are irreversible.

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 dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the operations and ending with the important omission caveat. The '(status)' aside is slightly cryptic but earns its place by linking to the enum parameter.

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?

No output schema exists, and this definition doesn't need one, since the annotations and description together cover the safety profile and the partial-update contract. Given how complex the tool is (14 parameters, destructive and open-world behavior), the description adds exactly the one non-obvious rule an agent needs: unspecified credentials are preserved.

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 7% across 14 parameters, so the description must carry meaning. It does group parameters into name, status, settings, and credentials, and it explains the omission behavior for credentials; but the large 'settings' cluster (sourceId, phoneEvent, phoneField, consentEvent, consentField, phoneEventProperty, username) is left entirely uninterpreted.

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?

It names a concrete verb set (rename, pause/resume, change settings or credentials) and states the resource is an integration, so it is distinguishable from siblings such as connect_integration, disconnect_integration, and sync_integration. It doesn't explicitly call those siblings out, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 usage is implied: use it to modify an already-connected integration. There is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over connect_integration or sync_integration, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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