set_integration_enabled

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Enable or disable' without mentioning side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or the role of dry_run (which defaults to true, implying the action is a dry run unless explicitly overridden). This critical behavior is undocumented.

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 short sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It front-loads the action but omits essential details, so the brevity is not a virtue here.

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 mutation tool with four parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not described, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain dry_run behavior, the host parameter, or what the output contains, making it difficult for an agent to use correctly.

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 adds no meaning to parameters like host or dry_run. The schema provides types and defaults but no explanations. The description does not compensate at all, leaving agents to guess what each parameter affects.

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 clearly states the action ('Enable or disable') and the resource ('an integration instance'), which is a specific and distinct purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like restart_integration or install_integration, though the resource and action are clear enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as configure_integration_entities or restart_integration. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about integration lifecycle. The agent is left to infer when this is appropriate.

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