node_integration_update_integration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond 'PATCH'. It does not say whether the update is partial, what happens to omitted fields, what restartNodes does, or that permissions/auth are required. The only behavioral hint is the PATCH verb implying a partial update.

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 short but under-specified, and the trailing 'Tags: Node Integrations Controller' line is auto-generated noise that does not earn its place. It is not front-loaded with anything actionable.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested body whose properties are mostly undocumented, this description is inadequate. It omits the fields that can be changed, expected permission requirements, and the effect of restartNodes, leaving the agent without enough to invoke it confidently.

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 50% (only the 'confirm' parameter is documented, and that lives in the schema, not the description). The nested body properties (name, uuid, config, description, restartNodes) have no descriptions, and the tool description adds no meaning about what any of them do.

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 verb and resource ('Update Node Integration') and adds the HTTP endpoint, so the purpose is identifiable. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name with no explanation of what a node integration is or which attributes are affected, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling create/delete/get integration tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as node_integration_create_integration, node_integration_delete_integration, or node_integration_get_integration_by_uuid. No prerequisites or context are provided.

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