update_integration

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'partial' update but does not explain whether the update is synchronous, permissions required, side effects (e.g., status change triggers), or how metadata is handled (merged vs replaced). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

One sentence with key details efficiently front-loaded. While concise, the parenthetical listing of fields is clear and no unnecessary words are present. Slightly less structured than ideal but acceptable.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and nested objects (metadata), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error handling, merging behavior for metadata, and the role of the 'sender' parameter. Agents would have to infer too much.

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 43%. The description lists updatable fields and notes nullable types for senderId and defaultTemplateSlug, adding marginal value. However, it does not explain metadata constraints, the meaning of 'sender' beyond schema, or the format of defaultTemplateSlug. The compensation is partial.

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 clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'installed integration', specifies it is a partial update, and lists the modifiable fields (displayName, senderId, status, defaultTemplateSlug, metadata). This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like install_integration (create) and uninstall_integration (delete).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., existing integration ID), or exclusions. The description does not mention any conditions or context that would help an agent decide between this and other tools.

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