update_mcp_integration

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds behavioral context by stating that changes apply immediately and altering url or auth_type can break connected clients, which is critical risk information beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence provides essential information: what is updated, immediate effects, and differentiation from sibling. No redundant or missing words.

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 (7 parameters, 2 enums, nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main aspects: fields that can be updated, immediate application, and risks. It does not describe the return value, but the output schema exists to provide that. It could mention potential side effects for other parameters but is sufficient for most agents.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for each parameter, so the description's general listing of fields adds no new semantic value. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters well.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'MCP integration', listing the specific fields: name, description, URL, auth, or transport. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'update_mcp_server' by noting that this tool handles URL/auth/transport changes, while the sibling is for renaming/re-describing.

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 clear when-to-use guidance by naming the alternative 'update_mcp_server' for cases where only renaming or re-describing is needed. It also warns about the impact of changing url or auth_type, indicating when caution is needed.

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