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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description adds the owner-only authorization requirement, which annotations cannot express. It doesn't say whether renaming is visible to the team or what happens to omitted fields, but the schema's name/on descriptions cover the field-level effects.

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?

Three terse sentences, front-loaded with the action and its two modes, then the permission constraint, then the sibling redirect. Nothing is padded.

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 small idempotent mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies action, modes, permission gate, and sibling disambiguation. Only the effect of partial updates (e.g., name omitted) is left implicit, which the schema largely resolves.

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% and each parameter (integration_id, name, on) carries its own explanation, so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies; the URL sentence is a scoping note, not parameter semantics.

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 specific verbs and resource: rename or toggle an integration, plus a scope boundary that excludes URL changes. This lets an agent separate it from change_integration_url and remove_integration without opening schemas.

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?

Declares the precondition (Owner only) and explicitly routes URL edits to change_integration_url, which is the most likely confusion among siblings. It doesn't mention remove_integration or create_integration as alternatives, but the exclusion it does give is the important one.

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