Upload integration artifact

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals mutating behavior, and the description adds meaningful detail by explicitly stating that 'update' replaces an existing artifact. It also clarifies the local zip file source, which helps the agent understand the operation's behavior beyond the annotation alone.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and immediately provides mode-specific behavior, making every sentence earn its place.

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?

Given six parameters, five of which are required, no output schema, and no parameter-level descriptions, the description is too thin to fully guide invocation. Key details such as what 'id' represents, how it should be supplied for create vs update, and the meaning of 'name' and 'version' are missing.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only clarifies 'mode' and 'file_path' (a local zip file). The roles of 'id', 'name', 'package_id', and 'version' are left unexplained, especially important for required parameters in create vs update scenarios.

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 explicitly states the action ('Create or update') and the resource ('integration design-time artifact'), with a clear source ('local zip file'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like download_integration_artifact and deploy_integration_artifact by focusing on design-time artifact creation/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?

The description gives clear guidance on mode selection: use 'create' for a new artifact and 'update' to replace an existing one. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool versus alternatives, but the mode-based usage context is clear and actionable.

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