update_integration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'patch' without revealing what changes are applied, whether it is destructive, whether it affects active connections, or what the response contains. The presence of reconnect_connection_ids in the schema implies behavioral side-effects, but the description omits any such detail.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than helpfully concise. Every word is present but insufficient; no structure or additional context is provided to justify its brevity.

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, nested objects, and no output schema. A minimal viable description would at least indicate what 'fields' refers to, what the behavior of reconnection is, and what the tool returns. The current description is completely inadequate for an agent to understand how to call it correctly or interpret results.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it provides zero information. Even though field names like 'environment' and 'integration_id' are somewhat self-explanatory, 'fields' as an arbitrary object and 'reconnect_connection_ids' are ambiguous. The description fails to clarify any parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('patch') and resource ('Nango integration'), clearly indicating a modification operation on an existing integration. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_integration or delete_integration, nor does it specify what aspects of the integration can be patched.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used to modify an existing integration's configuration, nor does it warn against using it for creation or deletion. No context about prerequisites (e.g., requiring an existing integration) is provided.

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