cigchat_set_integration_dropi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the HTTP method (POST), endpoint, and a specific auth requirement ('Manage Team' scope). However, it does not describe the effect on existing settings (e.g., whether it overwrites or merges), success/failure response, or any side effects. This is partial but not full transparency.

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 includes the core action, the endpoint, and the required permission. There is no redundant information or filler. Every word earns its place.

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 two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the action, endpoint, and auth requirement. However, it lacks any mention of when to use it versus the related get/clear integration tools, and it does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent or creates the integration if it does not exist. These gaps are minor given the low complexity.

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 with clear descriptions for both parameters ('url' and 'api_key'), including an example URL. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Update the config of Dropi integration'. It uses a specific verb (update) and resource (config of Dropi integration), and the endpoint [POST /integration/dropi] adds specificity. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_integration_dropi (read) and clear_integration_dropi (delete).

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 when updating the Dropi integration config, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It does not compare against get_integration_dropi or clear_integration_dropi, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The required scope is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.

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