node_integrations_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what fields are updatable, whether restartNodes has side effects, or permission requirements.

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?

Three words are brief but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded detail to earn the 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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what gets updated or how to structure a call.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden — and it provides nothing. The nested `config` object and `restartNodes` boolean are entirely unexplained, leaving their meaning and side effects opaque.

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?

"Update Node Integration" merely restates the tool name with no added specificity. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like node_integrations_create or node_integrations_delete, nor does it say what aspect of an integration is updated.

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 node_integrations_create, node_integrations_delete, or node_integrations_get. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named.

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