treeflow_configure_integration

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 communicates that the tool modifies integration configuration but omits key behavioral traits such as whether the config object is merged or replaced, whether the integration must already exist, whether the operation is idempotent, or whether any authorization is required. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded Spanish sentence that states the core action and examples with no filler. Every word contributes to meaning, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the return value and side-effect severity unspecified. For an operation that can update sensitive integration credentials like tokens and endpoints, the lack of any statement about overwrite vs. merge behavior or success/error outcomes leaves an agent uncertain about the consequences of invocation.

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 provides 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema fully documents tree_id, integration_key, enabled, and config. The tool-level description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning, matching the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 specific verbs ('Activa, desactiva o actualiza') and clearly identifies the resource: configuration of an external channel/integration, with concrete examples (whatsapp, telegram, webchat). This inherently distinguishes it from the read-only sibling tool treeflow_list_integrations.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool—when a channel/integration needs to be activated, deactivated, or reconfigured—but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as treeflow_list_integrations for reading current configurations. Usage guidance is present only by inference.

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