update_integration

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

The description warns that 'key and config changes take effect immediately and can disrupt dependent providers or live requests.' Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false, which is not directly contradicted (disruption is not necessarily destructive). No mention of authentication or rate limits.

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 sentences; efficient and front-loaded. However, it could be structured with bullet points for the warning to improve scanability.

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 tool with 13 provider-specific parameters, the description does not explain parameter applicability or required permissions. The output schema exists, so return values are covered. The disruption warning adds useful context, but overall completeness is mediocre.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond grouping fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('Update'), resource ('integration'), and specific fields ('name, key, or provider-specific config'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_integration and delete_integration.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_integration_models, update_integration_workspaces). The warning about disruption is useful but does not address selection criteria.

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