update_integration_workspaces

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: global_workspace_access_enabled affects current and future workspaces, override_existing_workspace_access determines replacement behavior, and per-workspace fields override top-level values. It also notes immediate downstream impact.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose and scope, second explains key toggles, third clarifies precedence, fourth gives operational warning. Slightly dense but well structured and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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's complexity (9 parameters, global vs per-workspace settings), the description covers the critical nuances and includes a caution to review first. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. It is complete enough for a knowledgeable agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful interactions between parameters (e.g., precedence rules, override semantics) that are not apparent from individual property descriptions. This elevates the score to 4.

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 controls per-workspace and global access to an integration, enumerating specific features (cost/rate limits, usage resets, provider creation). This distinguishes it from read-only siblings like list_integration_workspaces and the broader update_integration tool, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance to 'Review list_integration_workspaces first' and warns that access and limits change immediately, giving clear context on when and how to use the tool. It stops short of naming alternative tools for exclusions, but the prerequisite sequence is helpful.

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