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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds critical operational behavior: for case-queue-producer and case-queue-consumer integrations, attaching alone is insufficient and will cause runtime failure unless queues are linked. It also recommends a confirmation step with getRevisionCaseQueueSetup. This far exceeds annotation coverage and gives actionable operational warnings.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then delivers precise, high-value warnings and follow-ups. Every sentence earns its place; the 'IMPORTANT' section is justified by the severity of the runtime failure it prevents. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has a complex integration semantics requiring warnings about special cases. The description fully covers the attach action, the pinning alternative, the queue-linking requirement, and a verification step. It is complete given the schema provides parameter details and no output schema is expected.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for integration_ids by explaining that specific integration types (case-queue-producer and case-queue-consumer) have additional requirements beyond simply being in the list. This contextual parameter guidance justifies a score above baseline, though it doesn't detail every parameter.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Attach' with a clear resource ('one or more integrations to an agent revision'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from related sibling tools by naming pinRevisionIntegrationConnection, replaceRevisionIntegrationQueues, and getRevisionCaseQueueSetup as separate follow-up actions.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance and names alternatives: 'To pin specific connections after attachment, use pinRevisionIntegrationConnection' and 'until you link at least one queue with replaceRevisionIntegrationQueues.' It also gives a verification step, making the usage context unmistakable.

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