cigchat_set_integration_xai

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the HTTP method, endpoint, and required permission scope, but does not describe side effects (e.g., overwriting the existing API key), idempotency, or error/response behavior. It adds some behavioral context beyond the schema but lacks depth.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the action and endpoint, followed by the permission requirement. No wasted words; all content is relevant.

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 one-parameter configuration update, the description provides purpose, endpoint, and permission. It does not explain the return value or explicitly contrast with sibling set/clear tools, but given low complexity and high schema coverage, it is reasonably complete.

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% (single api_key param described as 'Api Key'), so baseline is 3. The description does not add further meaning about the parameter—it never mentions that api_key is the configuration value being updated—but the schema is sufficient given the simple tool.

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 of XAi integration') and provides the specific HTTP endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling get_integration_xai (read) and clear_integration_xai (delete) tools.

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?

It notes the required 'Manage Team' scope, which implies a privileged write operation, but does not explicitly mention when to use this vs. get/clear integration tools or what scenarios call for it. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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