update_integration_matcher

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value with the PUT semantics and the non-obvious caveat that JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings, but it does not say what state is overwritten/destroyed despite the destructive hint.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, with the encoding caveat appended where it is needed. Efficient and free of filler, though the endpoint template could be trimmed since it duplicates the parameter names.

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 destructive mutation with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, the description should explain permissions, overwrite behavior, and matcher field meaning. Instead it supplies only the HTTP path and one encoding note, leaving the agent under-informed for a mutating call.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, yet it only calls out the 'body' generically and warns about string encoding. project_id, integration_id, matcher_id, and the body sub-fields (key/name/value/method/match_type/body_data_type) receive no explanatory semantics beyond the URL template.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource ('Updates Integration Matcher') and the PUT path clarifies it targets an existing matcher on a project integration. It is clearly distinguishable from create_integration_matcher, delete_integration_matcher, and get_integration_matcher, but it never explains what a matcher is or which fields are meaningful to update.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the create/delete/get matcher siblings, and no prerequisites (e.g., matcher must already exist, required permissions) are given. The endpoint path implies an existing resource but leaves the agent to infer the usage conditions.

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