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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds context the annotations cannot: the lease/authorization requirement, that the reachable workspace is determined by the task, that only allowlisted endpoints succeed, and that every call is logged as an integration event. These are exactly the side-effect and permission traits an agent needs before attempting a mutation.

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?

Purpose and the lease precondition are front-loaded, which is the right order for a mutation tool. However, the five pasted provider documentation URLs plus the API reference link form a long tail that is reference material rather than decision-relevant guidance, slightly diluting an otherwise tight paragraph.

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?

Covers the mutation profile, authorization model, and targeting logic thoroughly, and the fully-documented 6-parameter schema carries the field-level detail. With no output schema, the description stops short of indicating what the call returns or how provider errors surface, which is the one remaining gap for a passthrough write tool.

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 100% and every parameter (body, query, action, method, task_id, provider) is already documented in the schema with defaults and enum values. The description's phrasing 'POST or PATCH' and the provider list merely restate the schema, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Performs one write (POST or PATCH) call against a system this client has connected,' then grounds it in concrete examples (Slack reply, GitHub PR comment, Notion page, Linear issue). It explicitly names the sibling it complements: 'read_integration covers reads,' so an agent can route between read and write without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a hard precondition ('Requires an active lease on a task in that client'), explains the mechanism that selects the target ('the task decides which workspace is reachable'), states the acceptance constraint ('only allowlisted endpoints are accepted'), and names the read counterpart. That is explicit when-to-use, when-not, and alternatives.

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