cigchat_set_integration_ainvented

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal an authentication requirement ('Requires the 'Manage Team' scope on the token') and indicates a POST endpoint (mutating), but it does not explain whether the update overwrites existing configuration, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. The term 'config' is vague—especially since the only parameter is api_key—leaving uncertainty about the actual behavior.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the endpoint and auth scope. Every piece of information is essential and there is no redundant or filler wording. It is efficiently structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description leaves ambiguity about the exact effect of the update—particularly because it says 'config' yet only accepts an API key. It also does not mention return values, but the absence of an output schema lowers that burden. Given the simplicity, the description is adequate but not complete in clarifying behavioral outcomes.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter (api_key: 'Api Key'), so the schema already provides full meaning. The description does not add any detail about the parameter beyond the schema, such as format, length, or how it relates to the config update. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 ('Update the config') and the specific resource ('Ainvented integration'), with the HTTP endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_integration_ainvented and clear_integration_ainvented. The verb and resource are precise and unambiguous.

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 usage through 'Update' and names the integration, so an agent knows when to call it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_integration_ainvented or clear_integration_ainvented. The scope requirement provides a prerequisite, but no exclusions or alternative guidance is present.

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