iaas_update_integration_async

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new information by disclosing the operation is asynchronous, but it omits the consequence of that (job/tracker handle returned, eventual consistency, partial-update vs replace semantics for PATCH).

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?

Three short lines with nothing wasted, but the first two lines are near-duplicates of each other and the third simply restates the annotation title (PATCH /iaas/api/integrations/{id}), so roughly a third of the text is redundant filler.

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 mutation tool with a nested request body, no output schema, and non-idempotent async behavior, the description should explain the async contract and what the caller receives. It provides no return/next-step information, leaving an agent unable to complete the workflow correctly from the description alone.

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 id, apiVersion and the nested body fields are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not better than baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (update) plus resource (a single integration) and notes the asynchronous nature, which no sibling name conveys on its own. It doesn't explicitly contrast with iaas_create_integration_async, iaas_delete_integration, or iaas_get_integration, but the verb makes the distinction obvious.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over the synchronous alternative or over create/delete siblings, and no prerequisites are stated. The word 'asynchronously' implies a follow-up step but the description never says what an agent must do after calling (poll a request tracker, etc.).

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