edubase_patch_integration

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., effect of multiple calls, creation if missing). It does not contradict annotations.

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 very short (two words) but lacks informative content. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of completeness, resulting in under-specification.

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 omits key context such as whether the tool upserts, returns any value, or has side effects. For a simple tool with no output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to understand behavior fully.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (integration ID, active toggle). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; baseline score of 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 'Update integration' is a tautology that restates the tool's name and title. It does not specify what integration properties can be updated or distinguish this tool from other patch tools for different resources (e.g., edubase_patch_organization).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like post_integration (create) or delete_integration. No prerequisites or context for usage are given.

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