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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses a post-condition side effect (the integration stays in an untested/suspended state until test_integration succeeds) and an authorization requirement (owner only). It doesn't say what happens if the URL is unreachable or invalid.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed only by the two facts an agent cannot get from structured fields (the retest gate and the owner restriction). No filler.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers authorization, the follow-up call, and the resulting state. It leaves open only minor edges such as validation failure behavior, which is acceptable given the schema documents formats.

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 100%, with the url format (https://), the retest requirement, and the integration_id source (uuid from list_integrations) all documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond restating the retest consequence, so the baseline of 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?

"Point an integration at a new URL" is a precise verb+resource statement that distinguishes this from sibling mutations like add_integration_address, remove_integration_address and update_integration. It stops short of naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary from context.

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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite (owner only) and an explicit sequencing constraint — the integration is not re-consulted for customers until test_integration passes at the new address, which tells the agent to follow up with test_integration. It does not state when to prefer add_integration_address over this tool, so no exclusions are covered.

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