edubase_post_integration

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no new behavioral details beyond stating creation. It does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or error handling, so it earns a 3.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word serves a purpose, and there is 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?

The tool has 5 parameters with conditional dependencies (lti and platform required for LMS types) and an output schema. The description does not summarize these constraints or guide the agent on parameter usage. Given the richness of the schema and annotations, the description is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters meaningfully. The description does not add any parameter-level information beyond the high-level mention of 'API or LMS integration' which maps to the 'type' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a new API or LMS integration' clearly states the action (create) and resource (integration) and distinguishes it from siblings like patch_integration (update) and delete_integration (delete). The specification of 'API or LMS integration' adds context about the types.

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 does not explicitly provide when-to-use or alternatives. While the name and sibling tools imply this is for creation, there is no guidance on when to use this over patch or when to avoid it (e.g., if an integration with the same title exists). The baseline understanding from context alone earns a 3.

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