Integrations: test

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

Discloses a non-obvious and decision-critical behavioral limitation: the API only confirms project-level existence and never calls the provider, so a pass does not validate stored credentials. This is exactly the kind of caveat annotations cannot express, and it materially changes how an agent should interpret success.

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?

Two tight sentences: the action and prerequisite come first, the caveat second. Nothing is redundant and no sentence is padding.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining what a successful result means — and it does so directly by warning that a pass proves only existence, not credential validity. Nothing needed to call or interpret the tool 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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents `connection_id` including where to find it. The description merely repeats that pointer, adding no new syntax or format detail.

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 and resource ('Test a connection'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like integrations_connections_list (read) and integrations_execute (invoke). It doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 sequencing ('Use after connecting') and names the source of the required id (`integrations_connections_list`). It does not state when to prefer integrations_execute or integrations_get instead, so it lacks explicit alternatives.

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