create_integration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that Slack is rejected, but does not state what happens on success (e.g., whether it returns the created integration), any validation side effects, permission requirements, or whether changes are immediately visible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and then adds the critical Slack exclusion. Every sentence earns its place, and it stays under the ideal length without sacrificing key information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, a nested settings object, and no output schema), the description does not explain the return value on success or any prerequisites like permissions. The schema covers parameter specifics well, but the absence of behavioral and return-value context means an agent may be uncertain about what to expect after calling it. Adequate but not 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters with type-specific details (e.g., settings format, allowed types). The description adds contextual purpose ('attached to checks for incident notifications') but does not meaningfully augment parameter meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new integration' and clarifies the types (webhook, email, msteams) and purpose (attached to checks for incident notifications). It also distinguishes itself from other integration-related tools by explicitly excluding Slack and pointing to the dashboard OAuth flow. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and how it differs from list_integrations or incident_notifications_list.

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 gives a clear when-to-use signal for creating webhook/email/msteams integrations and an explicit exclusion with an alternative for Slack ('install it via the dashboard OAuth flow instead'). It doesn't cover other exclusions like duplicate names or update flows, but the primary choice between this tool and the dashboard is clearly resolved.

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