platform_integrations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists actions including delete and test, which imply mutability and potential destructive effects, but does not explicitly state consequences, permission requirements, or idempotency. The existence of a 'confirm' parameter hints at safeguards but is never explained.

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 first sentence '[Arch Build] Arch creates and changes projects, agents, tools, configuration, versions, and deployments.' is generic and not specific to this tool, adding noise and diluting focus. The second sentence is concise but the overall structure is not front-loaded with tool-specific 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?

Insufficient for a 10-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage. The description does not explain the role of key parameters, the exact behavior of each action (e.g., what 'test' does), or any expected response. An agent cannot safely execute even the simplest operation without additional information.

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 description fails to explain any of the 10 parameters. It only mentions 'auth profile' conceptually but does not connect it to the authProfileId parameter. Agents cannot determine the meaning or required format of projectId, connectorName, displayName, status, confirm, metadata, etc., making correct invocation nearly impossible.

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?

Clearly states it manages connector/integration connections that bind a connector to an auth profile, and enumerates specific actions (list, get, create, update, test, delete). This distinguishes it from siblings like platform_connect by focusing on the binding to an auth profile. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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?

Provides a specific prerequisite: 'Use platform_auth_profiles first when the connection requires authentication.' This is useful guidance. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus other platform tools (e.g., platform_mcp_servers) or when to choose each action. The usage context is only partially implied by the action list.

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