update_mcp_integration

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond annotations: partial update semantics ('Only supplied fields change'), immediate effect and potential to break active clients for URL/auth/header/secret changes, and the need to inspect first. This adds significant value beyond the destructiveHint annotation and does not contradict it.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: what the tool does, key behavioral warnings, and alternative tool guidance. It is front-loaded with the core action and fields, and contains no extraneous information.

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 moderate complexity (8 params, nested objects) and the existing output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, partial update behavior, immediate impact warnings, prerequisite inspection, and alternative tooling. It is fully sufficient for an agent to use the tool safely and 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 all parameters are documented, but the description adds important semantic context about partial updates ('Only supplied fields change') and groups fields by impact, which helps the agent understand how parameters combine. This elevates it above the baseline.

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') and resource ('MCP integration'), lists the specific updatable fields, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool update_mcp_server by explicitly naming the alternative for server display metadata changes.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative ('Use update_mcp_server when changing only a Portkey server instance's display metadata') and advises inspecting get_mcp_integration first, giving clear contextual usage instructions.

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