cigchat_set_integration_calude

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

With no annotations, the description must carry disclosure weight. It discloses the auth requirement ('Manage Team' scope) and the endpoint, which adds useful context. However, it does not state whether this overwrites the entire config, what happens to existing settings, or that the only configurable field is api_key. For a mutation tool, more behavioral detail would be valuable.

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, about 20 words, front-loaded with the action. The auth scope is included without fluff. Every sentence earns its place, making it appropriately concise.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the action, endpoint, and required scope. It does not mention related get/clear tools, but that omission does not cripple usability. It is sufficiently complete for this low-complexity operation.

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 100% with api_key described as 'Api Key'. The description's mention of 'config' is vague and does not add meaning beyond the schema. It neither clarifies the api_key format nor explicitly links it to the config update, leaving the parameter semantics to the schema alone.

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 'Update the config of CaludeAi integration' with the specific endpoint [POST /integration/calude], which specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_integration_* and clear_integration_* via 'set', though it does not explicitly mention those alternatives. The misspelling 'CaludeAi' could cause minor confusion but matches the tool name.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need to update the CaludeAi integration config. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as get_integration_calude for reading or clear_integration_calude for removing. The 'Requires Manage Team scope' gives a prerequisite but not situational guidance.

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