Integrations: Update an Integration Hook

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

Annotations declare the write/non-idempotent/open-world profile, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real context: the required auth scheme (User API key in an api-access-token header), the exact HTTP path, and that unrecognized keys are routed through extra_body. It also warns that Persian/Arabic-Indic digits and Farsi text pass through unchanged, which is non-obvious. It does not say whether settings are merged or replaced, which is the main remaining gap for a non-idempotent PATCH.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the endpoint, auth, and body notes in a compact block; every line carries information an agent needs. The encoding note is slightly tangential but relevant to payload construction.

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 4-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description supplies endpoint, auth requirement, body scope and an escape hatch for extra fields, which is close to what an agent needs to invoke it. The missing piece is whether the settings object replaces or merges existing hook configuration.

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 schema already documents hook_id, account_id, settings and extra_body; the baseline is 3. The description adds only the mapping "Body fields: settings" and the extra_body pass-through note, which the schema description already conveys, without explaining settings contents or merge semantics.

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 names a specific verb+resource ("Update an Integration Hook") and pins it with the exact endpoint PATCH /api/v1/accounts/{account_id}/integrations/hooks/{hook_id}, so it is clearly distinct from create/delete hook siblings. It does not name any sibling explicitly, but the resource and method make the intent unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: PATCH plus required account_id/hook_id signal that this modifies an existing hook rather than creating one. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over gapify_create_integration_hook or gapify_delete_integration_hook, and no preconditions beyond the auth header.

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