update-integration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the update nature and notes an important Slack-specific behavior about incoming webhooks versus the ConfigCat Slack app. However, it does not clarify whether the update is partial or a full replacement, what happens to existing linked environments/configs, or other side effects.

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 long but organized by integration type, making the content scannable and efficient for a complex multi-provider tool. The first sentence's 'Config' wording is a flaw, and the trailing 'PubNub (work in progress)' is vague, but overall the structure earns its length.

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 provides deep per-type parameter context, which is valuable, but it omits key update semantics such as whether missing fields in the request body are cleared, whether the endpoint does a full replacement, or what the response contains. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, these gaps leave an agent uncertain about the outcome of the call.

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 schema only describes `parameters` as a generic object with string values, so the description adds substantial value by enumerating required and optional keys per IntegrationType, including available values, defaults, and links. This is especially important given the 50% schema description coverage. The only notable gap is the incomplete 'work in progress' PubNub section.

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 an update operation and names the `integrationId` parameter, but calls the resource 'a Config' rather than an Integration, which is confusing and inconsistent with the tool name. The per-IntegrationType parameter detail helps clarify what is being updated, but the initial sentence muddies the core purpose.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-integration, create-integration, or delete-integration. The description focuses on parameter formatting rather than usage context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the verb 'updates.'

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