configure_integration_entities

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

With no annotations, 'Additive; removes nothing' is a meaningful side-effect guarantee that goes beyond the tool name and discloses non-destructive behavior. It does not mention the dry_run default or idempotence specifics, but the core behavioral trait is clearly stated.

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 deliver purpose, side-effect guarantee, and setup caveat with no filler. The description is front-loaded with the action and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core action and non-destructive guarantee, and an output schema exists for return values. However, it omits the practical implication of dry_run defaulting to true and does not state prerequisites like the integration needing to be installed or set up first.

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%, and the description only indirectly maps integration_id and entity_ids to 'entities from an integration.' It adds no meaning for host or dry_run, and dry_run's default of true is behaviorally important but left unexplained.

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 a specific verb ('Expose') and resource ('entities from an integration') and states the purpose ('so activities and pages can use them'). This clearly differentiates it from installation, listing, enabling, or setup siblings.

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 note 'Setup finishing does not do this for you' gives the agent clear context that this is the necessary post-setup step for exposing entities. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is concrete enough for selection.

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