update_integration_models

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: 'These changes affect every workspace using the integration' and 'Returns success and the number of models updated.' This improves transparency, though it doesn't cover all nuances like atomicity or rollback behavior.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: first lists actions, second clarifies a parameter, third warns about scope and gives guidance, fourth notes the return. It is front-loaded and concise without waste.

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 complex tool with 3 parameters and a nested models array, the description covers purpose, safety, scope, sequencing, alternatives, and return value. An output schema exists, so detailed return fields do not need to be explained. The description is complete and well-rounded.

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 summarizes parameter effects (e.g., 'allow_all_models controls whether future provider models start enabled') but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema definitions. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Bulk enable or disable integration models, register custom or fine-tuned models, set per-model hosts and headers, and attach static token pricing.' It enumerates distinct actions, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_integration_models or delete_integration_model.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'inspect list_integration_models first' and 'use get_model_pricing when deriving custom rates.' It names alternative tools and gives sequencing context, fulfilling the when-to-use vs alternatives criterion.

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