Integrations: Create an integration hook

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld, non-idempotent), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: the required auth mechanism (User API key in an `api-access-token` header), the extra_body passthrough behavior, and the Persian/Arabic-Indic digit handling. It still omits response behavior, but that is a minor gap against annotation coverage.

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?

Compact and front-loaded, leading with the create action before the endpoint path, auth, fields, and notes. The POST path and header details are functional rather than filler, though the block is somewhat dense.

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 create-style mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth, body fields, the extra_body escape hatch, and an important input-encoding quirk. Annotations handle the safety profile, so the remaining omission of return/pagination behavior is acceptable.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the body fields (app_id, inbox_id, settings) and explains extra_body, matching the schema, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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+resource ('Create an integration hook') that clearly distinguishes it from sibling update/delete/list integration tools. However, it never explicitly names an alternative or clarifies scope beyond the verb, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives like gapify_update_integration_hook or gapify_delete_integration_hook. The listing of body fields and the inbox_id hint imply scope but provide no usage direction.

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