start_integration_setup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the first screen, that some drivers require setup_data up front, that a 400 error indicates missing setup data, and that a 503 means the driver process is not running yet. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't describe side effects or state changes in detail.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds two sentences of practical troubleshooting. Every sentence earns its place, though the 503 guidance could be seen as slightly tangential to the core purpose. Overall it's well-structured and not bloated.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers the key behavioral nuances (setup_data, 400, 503) that an agent needs to call it correctly. It doesn't explain host or reconfigure, but those are optional and likely self-explanatory. The description is complete enough for a setup-initiating tool with an output schema.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains setup_data semantics in detail (pass it up front to avoid 400 errors) and mentions driver_id implicitly as the integration being set up. It doesn't explain host or reconfigure, but the setup_data guidance is the most critical parameter behavior. The description adds value beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Begin an integration's setup and return its first screen.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_integration_setup, answer_integration_setup, and confirm_integration_setup, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The purpose is clear and actionable.

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 description provides practical guidance on when to pass setup_data up front and how to interpret 503 errors, which helps an agent decide how to invoke the tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_integration_setup or answer_integration_setup, but the context of starting setup is clear. The guidance about 503 and restarting the system is a strong usage hint.

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