reconnect_integration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: the status changes to 'pending' during testing, indicating an asynchronous operation with a state transition. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens after completion (e.g., success/failure outcomes). The description doesn't contradict annotations, as none exist.

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 concise sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds critical behavioral context (status change). It is front-loaded and efficiently structured, making it easy to parse.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides minimal but adequate context for a simple tool with two parameters. It explains the action and a key behavioral trait (status change), but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. For a reconnection operation, more completeness would include expected outcomes or failure modes.

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 fully documents the two required parameters (workspace_id and integration_id as UUIDs). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as where to find these IDs or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Re-test the connection') and resource ('an integration'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_integration' or 'delete_integration' by focusing on connection testing rather than lifecycle management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_integration' or 'update_integration' in terms of connection-specific operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing integration needing reconnection), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_integration' (for status checks) or 'update_integration' (for configuration changes). Usage is implied only by the action described.

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