cigchat_set_integration_openai

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (POST) and the required authorization scope ('Manage Team'), which is useful behavior context. However, it does not mention whether the update overwrites existing configuration, any irreversible effects, or the response shape.

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 purpose, HTTP method, endpoint, and scope requirement. No wasted words.

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 a simple config update with two parameters. The description covers the purpose, endpoint, and permission requirement. While it doesn't mention return values or side effects, the brevity is acceptable given the low complexity and full schema coverage.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described ('Api Key', 'Organization Id'). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' and identifies the resource as 'the config of OpenAi integration'. It also includes the HTTP endpoint, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_integration_openai (read) and clear_integration_openai (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 states a prerequisite: Requires the 'Manage Team' scope on the token. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get vs update), nor does it mention any exclusion criteria. The usage context is implied by the verb 'Update'.

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