Api integrations configs update

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description should add what changes — e.g., that the body replaces fields on an existing integration config, whether changes affect active syncs, or permission requirements. Instead it repeats a CRUD verb list and adds nothing beyond the 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?

A single short sentence, but it is boilerplate that does not earn its place — it neither distinguishes the tool nor explains the single required input. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

For a mutation tool with an opaque freeform body, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the payload shape and the effect of the update. None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to invoke the tool correctly.

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% and the two parameters are entirely undocumented: 'id' is a bare string with no explanation of format or where to obtain it, and 'body' is a freeform object with additionalProperties and no nested schema. The description provides zero param info, so an agent has no idea what fields to put in the body.

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 reads as a generic CRUD summary ('creating, viewing, updating, and deleting Integration Configurations') rather than identifying this specific tool as the update operation. It does name the resource (Integration Configurations), but an agent cannot tell from the text whether this tool updates, creates, or deletes — the siblings configs_create, configs_retrieve, configs_destroy, and configs_list all exist separately.

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 versus configs_partial_update or the other CRUD siblings. Because the description enumerates all operations, it actively muddies tool selection rather than helping. There is no mention of required id semantics or that a full vs partial update distinction exists.

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