list_mcp_integration_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds value by describing the return shape in semantic terms ('total plus enabled-state entries') and why it matters (deciding what to toggle), though the output schema carries some of this.

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with purpose followed by the sequencing guidance. No filler.

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?

Output schema, rich annotations, and full param coverage mean little is missing. The one gap is not disambiguating from list_mcp_server_capabilities in a very crowded sibling set.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as an ID or slug. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource: lists capabilities exposed by the external MCP server for a given integration. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling list_mcp_server_capabilities, which an agent could easily pick instead.

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?

Explicitly states the ordering relationship: use before update_mcp_integration_capabilities when comparing the current surface. That is a real usage rule, but it doesn't say when to prefer this over the server-level capability listing sibling.

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