integration_upsert

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It states the secret is encrypted, but it does not explain whether the operation is idempotent, whether existing secrets are overwritten, what happens if the provider already exists, or if any authentication is required. For a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single sentence, highly concise and front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted wording. However, its brevity sacrifices necessary detail, so it is efficient but not fully structured for utility. It earns a high score for conciseness alone, but not for completeness.

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 the tool has 3 parameters (2 required), no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter coverage in the description, the description is far from complete. It lacks critical information about parameter semantics, upsert behavior, potential side effects, and expected outcomes. An agent would not have enough context to safely and correctly invoke this tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention 'provider', 'secret', or 'label' at all. It gives examples of provider values (Google/Apple) but does not clarify the meaning of 'label' or the expected format of 'secret'. The description adds no semantic value beyond the raw schema, which is inadequate given the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 tool's core action: storing an encrypted integration secret, with examples of providers (Google/Apple). It distinguishes from siblings like integration_list (which lists integrations) and others. However, it does not explicitly mention the 'upsert' semantics (create-or-update), which is implied by the tool name but not stated in the description, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether an OAuth client must exist), nor does it indicate any conditions for calling it. There is no mention of when to use integration_upsert vs. integration_list or other integration-related tools.

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