Create Integration

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint: false), and the description adds context about how the created integration behaves ('calls an external URL when specific ticket events occur'). This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the purpose of an HTTP integration. However, it doesn't disclose permission requirements or response format, so it's not a perfect score.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the HTTP method and resource, and contains no filler. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with a nested 'http' object and multiple parameters, the description provides a solid high-level overview, and the schema fills in the details. It lacks information about the return value, but the absence of an output schema lowers the need. It's adequate for the complexity level.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a minor note about HTTP being the primary type, which reinforces the 'type' parameter's constraint, but it doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already documents in 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Creates a new integration'), specifies the resource ('within the Gorgias helpdesk system'), and distinguishes the tool by noting the primary supported type is HTTP integration. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get/update/delete integration.

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 implies when to use this tool (to create a new integration) and notes that the REST API only supports HTTP integrations, which guides the agent toward the 'type' parameter. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like update_integration, but the create action is inherently distinct from list/get/update/delete siblings.

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