edubase_post_integration

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

The description aligns with annotations (not readOnly, not destructive, not idempotent, open world). It adds context about the types of integrations (API vs LMS) beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose potential behavioral traits like required permissions or rate limits.

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 concise sentence (8 words) that is front-loaded. It is efficient but could include more information without becoming verbose, such as clarifying that LMS integrations require 'lti' and 'platform' parameters.

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 (5 parameters, 1 required, output schema exists), the description is minimal. It does not explain return values (though output schema exists) or emphasize required conditions for LMS types. More context would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only clarifying the distinction between API and LMS integrations. Baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a new API or LMS integration.' It uses a specific verb (Create) and resource (integration), and distinguishes from sibling tools like edubase_delete_integration or edubase_patch_integration. The mention of 'API or LMS' narrows the scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edubase_post_integration_keys (for generating keys) or other creation tools. The description does not specify prerequisites or cases where this tool should not be used.

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