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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the human approval link step, the 'no duplicate sheet/database' guarantee for Sheets/Notion, and provider-specific required keys. It doesn't clarify what is destroyed or the consequences of overwriting an existing config, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the action and the approval/idempotency caveats before the required config enumeration, and every clause earns its place given the nested-object burden. The dense comma-separated config list is long but justified.

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 three-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the activation flow, approval requirement, idempotency nuance, and complete config semantics for every provider — nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The schema describes 'config' only as 'Provider config (see the tool description)' with 100% top-level coverage but a fully opaque nested object, so the description carries the burden and delivers detailed per-provider key syntax for all five providers.

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-plus-resource ('Turn on (or reconfigure) a form's ... destination') and enumerates all five supported providers, so an agent can immediately distinguish it from fillo_disable_integration and fillo_disconnect_integration.

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 clear context for use (enabling/reconfiguring a destination, with the note that re-running on an already-on Sheets/Notion destination is safe) and implies the alternative disable path, but never explicitly names when NOT to use this tool or points to fillo_disable_integration/get_integration by name.

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