Create Integration Model

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with a create operation. The description adds that the model must be a valid OpenAPI specification, implying validation, but does not disclose error handling, potential overwrites, or response details. Given annotations cover the basic safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action in the first sentence. The second sentence provides essential context and a constraint without redundancy.

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 has a simple one-parameter input and an output schema, so the description's focus on purpose and validity is largely sufficient. However, it lacks mention of what happens after creation (e.g., how to interact with the model, possible validation failures), though the output schema likely covers that.

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?

The schema documents the single 'model' parameter as 'OpenAPI specification' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces this by stating the model must be a valid OpenAPI specification, but adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 'Create a new integration model on Itential Platform from an OpenAPI specification,' identifying both the action and the resource. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_integration_models and get_integrations, which are read-only.

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 explains the purpose of integration models but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use create_command_template or update_integration_model. It implies that any new integration model should be created here, but lacks exclusions or conditions.

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