update_integration_value

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description's 'PUT' framing is consistent with that. It adds one genuinely useful implementation caveat ('JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings'), but says nothing about whether omitted fields are cleared or what permissions are needed for a destructive, open-world mutation.

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 sentences with no filler; the endpoint and body caveat come early. It is terse to the point of underspecification rather than verbose.

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, four-required-parameter mutation with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description should explain the extract-value concept and the replace semantics of the body. As written, an agent knows the endpoint but not what it is actually changing.

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 carries the full burden. It does map the ID parameters to the URL path, but 'Supply API fields in body' gives no meaning for the six body properties (key, name, variable, value_source, variable_type, body_data_type) or how the enums should be chosen.

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 (updates) and resource (Integration ExtractValue), and the URL template pins down that it targets one value under a project/integration. It is distinguishable from create_integration_value, get_integration_value, and delete_integration_value by the verb alone, though the term 'ExtractValue' itself is left unexplained.

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 guidance on when to use this versus create_integration_value or update_integration, and no prerequisite such as needing an existing value_id from list_integration_values/get_integration_value. The agent must infer the update workflow entirely.

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