update_integration

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Patch', implying modification of an integration, but does not explain side effects, required permissions, or what happens to fields not specified.

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 extremely short (one sentence), but it is underspecified rather than concise. It lacks necessary detail and does not effectively communicate usage.

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 has 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse description, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to correctly understand and invoke this tool.

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?

The input schema has 6 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no meaning to any parameter; it does not explain the purpose of 'fields', 'confirmation', 'reconnect_connection_ids', etc.

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 the specific verb 'Patch' and resource 'Nango integration', clearly indicating a partial update operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_integration and delete_integration, though it does not elaborate on what 'patch' entails.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_integration or get_integration. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria.

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