get_integration_plan

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description goes beyond them by disclosing the deliverable contents — backend token examples plus links to exact platform guides — which is meaningful since no output schema exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first; the platform list is slightly redundant with the enum but still aids selection. No filler sentences.

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?

The description explains what the plan contains, which compensates for the missing output schema, but leaves includeUi's behavior unexplained for a two-parameter tool. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only restates the platform enum values and never mentions includeUi or what toggling it does. One of two parameters is effectively undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ("Plan") and resource (a ConvoKit integration) and enumerates the supported platforms, so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_guide or get_code_examples even though it explicitly emits guide links and token examples.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent must infer that this is the entry point for starting an integration, versus get_guide for incremental lookups or get_code_examples for snippets.

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