payments_create_integration

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which is consistent with the 'create' action, but the description adds no behavioral detail beyond that. It does not explain side effects (e.g., whether creating an integration overwrites or conflicts with existing ones), permission requirements, or any persistence implications. With annotations present, the bar is lower, yet the description still adds no value beyond restating the action.

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 extremely brief but not effectively structured. 'Create new integration' wastes the available space on a tautologous restatement of the tool name. While it is concise (no fluff), it fails to use the space to convey any differentiating or clarifying information, making it closer to under-specification than genuine conciseness.

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 create operation with 6 required parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It omits the payment integration domain, the purpose of the URLs, the meaning of the boolean flag, and any note about location defaults. An agent cannot understand what the tool does or what the consequences are without diving deep into the schema and sibling context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool description itself contributes no additional semantic context—it does not clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., how paymentsUrl and queryUrl relate) or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Create new integration' states a verb and resource but is extremely generic. It does not specify that this is a payments integration, and the tool name alone carries the domain context. With multiple sibling tools named '*_create_integration' (e.g., ad_manager_fb_create_integration, ad_manager_google_create_integration), the description provides no differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many alternative create_integration siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The agent must infer everything from the parameter schema and naming convention.

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