patch_w_integration_integration_credentials

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only restates the mutation ('Update') and HTTP method and gives a generic routing template. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or what fields are modified, which is insufficient for a write operation.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and parameter routing in the second sentence. There is no filler, though the second sentence reads as a generic template that could apply to many endpoints.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the agent lacks enough information to know what fields the integration credential update accepts or which path/query values are valid; the path_params instruction is also suspicious because the endpoint string contains no visible path parameters. The description is too generic for a tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations.

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 must compensate; it does map path_params to route IDs, query to filters/pagination, headers to required headers, and body to request payload. However these are high-level labels, and 'request payload' does not reveal the actual body structure, which is critical since body is an unconstrained {} in the schema.

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 states 'Update integration credential' and gives the exact PATCH endpoint, making the operation and resource clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling get/post/delete credential tools via the update verb, though it does not define what an integration credential is.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of sibling tools like post_w_integration_integration_credentials or the get/delete variants. The instruction 'Provide route IDs in path_params...' is invocation mechanics, not selection criteria, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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