integrations_write

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

Beyond the destructive=true/openWorld=true annotations, it discloses meaningful behavior: disconnects are refused while agents use the connection unless force, zoho_auto_configure and zoho_test_lookup explicitly do not save, assigning a mail inbox also starts inbound notifications, and remove with {} clears all. It does not state that assign overwrites existing settings wholesale, which is why this is a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Purpose and workflow are front-loaded, which is good, but the middle is a single sprawling sentence enumerating per-type settings that largely restates the 94%-covered schema. Density at that coverage level buys less than it costs in readability.

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 16-parameter, nested oneOf dispatcher with no output schema, the description covers selection (action), prerequisites (id sourcing), verification (integrations_test/agent_integrations), and safety (confirm-before-disconnect). Missing only a note on what the call returns, which is a modest gap.

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 coverage is 94%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics the schema lacks: where to source ids, per-type settings expectations (up to 5 calendars/sheets, bookingMode route vs union, timezone formats), and the draft-then-save flow for Zoho configs. Some of the inline settings enumeration duplicates schema text.

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?

Opens with a specific verb triplet and resource: 'Add, change or remove an integration on an agent, exactly like the dashboard.' It also names its sibling read/verify tools (integrations_read, integrations_test), so the agent can distinguish it from adjacent tools without inspecting schemas.

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?

States the prerequisite workflow explicitly ('Get ids from integrations_read (all_connections, resources)' and 'After assigning, verify with integrations_read agent_integrations and integrations_test'), and each action carries its own 'Needs:' prerequisite list plus guidance like 'confirm first' for disconnects.

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