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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable context beyond annotations: tokens are encrypted at rest, owner/admin permission is required, and provider-specific integrations are enabled. It does not explicitly say that setting a token overwrites an existing one, but the destructive hint covers that risk.

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 core action and security context, then organized by provider with consistent formatting. Every sentence adds useful information—there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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 tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is complete: it covers permission requirements, encryption, provider-specific token sources, and downstream effects. An agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning by mapping each provider enum value to its token source and the feature it enables. This goes well beyond the schema's generic 'Provider-issued API token' and helps the agent construct correct values.

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 states a specific action ('Store a third-party source API token') with the resource scope ('for the organization') and encryption detail. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like integrations_delete and integrations_list by focusing on configuration/setup rather than removal or listing.

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 gives clear context: it requires owner/admin and explains when each provider token should be used by linking providers to enabling specific features. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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