Update Integration

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

Annotations already cover idempotency (idempotentHint=true) and non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds that it returns the updated Integration object, which is useful given no output schema, but it does not disclose behavior like partial vs. full replacement of fields, which is a significant ambiguity for an update tool with many optional fields.

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 endpoint, and contains no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, the minimum requirement, and the return value.

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 moderately complex schema with nested objects and no output schema, the description provides the essential return type ('returns the updated Integration object') and the core update intent. The field-level details are well-covered by the schema, and annotations fill the safety profile. However, it lacks guidance on how optional fields behave during updates, which would make it more complete.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond restating that 'name' is required and mentioning the HTTP endpoint, which is already reflected in the schema's required list.

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 tool's function: 'Update an existing integration by its ID' with the HTTP method PUT specified. This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_integration, delete_integration, and get_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 provides clear context that this is for updating existing integrations and requires at least a name. It implies the need for an existing integration ID, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like create or delete. No when-not-to-use guidance is given beyond the implied existing-entity requirement.

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