Upload integration artifact

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

The description begins with 'DESTRUCTIVE' and states 'cannot be undone', going beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying that modification is irreversible. This adds operational context about the impact of calling the tool, though it does not detail other side effects like overwrites.

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 three concise sentences that front-load the destructive warning and directly explain the mode parameter. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff.

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 description is adequate for a write tool with 6 parameters, but given 0% schema coverage and no output schema, it leaves some context lacking, such as expected file format or potential error conditions. Still, the core purpose and mode usage are clear.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description provides some context by explaining the 'mode' parameter's two values (create/update). However, it does not describe the other five parameters, leaving them vague (e.g., what 'file_path' expects). This partially compensates but not fully.

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 the verb 'Create or update' and the resource 'integration design-time artifact on the live CPI tenant from a local zip file'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like download_integration_artifact and deploy_integration_artifact by focusing on uploading design-time artifacts.

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?

It explains when to use mode 'create' vs 'update', providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the sibling list implies a read-oriented ecosystem, and the description makes the destructive nature clear.

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