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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: disabling halts all syncing and credentials are preserved, which is exactly the kind of side-effect detail an agent needs before a mutation. Annotations already establish idempotency and non-destructiveness, so this supplementary context earns credit without carrying the full burden.

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, action stated first, consequence second. Every clause earns its place and there is 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 boolean toggle with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description supplies the key side-effect information. An output schema is absent, so explaining return values is unnecessary; only a minor gap remains around what 'enabled' returns or error conditions.

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%, so both parameters are already documented (enabled as true/false, integration_id as the ID). The description's mention of enable/disable maps to the enabled flag 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 (enable or disable) and resource (an integration), making the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like toggle_automation or get_integration, but the name and phrasing are distinct enough for an agent to disambiguate.

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 description implies usage through the stated consequence (disabling stops syncing), which helps an agent reason about when to call it, but it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions or named alternatives. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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