update_integration

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

Annotations already flag this as a destructive, idempotent, open-world write, and the description does not contradict them. It adds a little context (PUT semantics, string-encoding caveat), but for a destructiveHint=true operation it never says what the PUT overwrites or whether omitted fields are cleared, which is exactly the risk an agent needs spelled out.

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, front-loaded fragments with no filler; the endpoint and the encoding caveat come immediately. The opening "Update Integration" duplicates the tool name and could be dropped, but overall it is tight.

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?

A destructive mutation with a deeply nested body schema and no output schema needs more: whether this is a full replace or a merge, which fields are required beyond name, and what happens to unmentioned settings. None of that is covered.

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 0% and the body is a large nested IntegrationRequest with fields like task_params, auth_header, auth_secret_id, and searchable, none explained. "Supply API fields in body" and "JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings" are useful hints but leave the majority of the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

"Update Integration" restates the tool name, but the added PUT path with project_id/integration_id makes clear it mutates a specific existing project integration. It does not distinguish this from close siblings such as update_integration_value, update_integration_matcher, or create_integration, so the agent must infer scope from the name alone.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus update_integration_value/update_integration_matcher, nor any prerequisite (does the integration need to exist, does it need to be disabled first?). Usage is only implied by the word "update".

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