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

Adds behavior beyond the annotations: secrets are validated, never echoed back, and the tool is non-OAuth because it accepts secrets. That complements the write/idempotency hints meaningfully, though it doesn't state what a replace does to prior credentials.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. The routing note and the secret-handling note each carry distinct value.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the security posture and routing constraint. The main residual gap is whether replacing an integration silently overwrites existing credentials or requires removal first.

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 67% and the workspaceId semantics and credential nesting are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces 'provider-nested credentials' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 pair ('Store or replace') and resource ('one provider integration') plus the credential shape. An agent can tell it apart from read siblings like get_integrations, though it never names edit_workspace_integrations or connect_account 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?

Gives a clear usage rule: connected apps are told to send the user to workspace settings instead of calling this tool, and it explains the non-OAuth rationale. It stops short of naming the alternative API tool, so it is context-rich but not full when/when-not routing.

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