Integrations: enable

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds value beyond them: it specifies that stored credentials are unchanged and that the tool returns the connection's name and new state, which an agent cannot infer from the annotations alone.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the effect, then the inverse. No filler and nothing repeated from the title that isn't also doing routing work.

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 one-parameter state toggle, the description covers the effect, side-effect profile, return value (substituting for the absent output schema), and the sibling relationship. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single parameter's description already tells the agent to find the ID via integrations_connections_list. The tool description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Enable') and resource ('a connection'), then elaborates the exact effect: re-enabling a disabled connection for integrations_execute and workflow steps. It explicitly names its opposite, integrations_disable, so an agent can distinguish the pair without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when this applies ('a disabled connection') and names the inverse tool for the opposite situation. It stops short of stating preconditions or failure modes (e.g. what happens if the connection is already enabled), so it is strong but not fully explicit.

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