Update an integration connection

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false; the description adds real substance: setting parameters re-authenticates the connection, obfuscated secrets must be echoed back unchanged to be preserved, and OAuth integrations respond with a redirectUrl instead of completing inline. That is meaningful mutation/return behavior the annotations do not convey.

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 tight sentences with the primary update targets front-loaded, followed by the re-auth caveat and the OAuth return case. Dense but no filler; the opening sentence is slightly clipped grammatically but still parses.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value detail is largely optional, yet the description still flags the OAuth redirectUrl case. For a 9-parameter mutation tool it covers the operationally critical semantics (re-auth, secret preservation, credential store) and omits only peripheral fields such as callbackPath.

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 only 22%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains the semantics of connectionName, isDefault, parameters (authSchema-driven, re-auth, secret obfuscation) and credentialStore, but says nothing about callbackPath, integration, or connection_id, leaving several parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb and resource and goes further by enumerating the mutable fields ('connectionName', 'isDefault: true', 'parameters' with 'credentialStore'). It never names a sibling tool (get/create/delete_integration_connection) for contrast, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implied by the enumerated cases: rename a connection, flip the default, or change credentials/parameters via re-authentication. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over create_integration_connection or get_integration_connection, and no prerequisites (e.g., permissions) are stated.

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