design_integration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool produces a plan and lists what the plan includes, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits like whether it modifies existing data, requires specific permissions, or is a read-only operation. The description implies analysis and planning without side effects, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 concise, well-structured with bullet points, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It explains the plan's content and how to use it with sibling tools. However, it lacks details on the return format or structure of the plan, which would be helpful.

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 high (89%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds overall context about the plan's content but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides for individual parameters. It lists artifact types but not parameter-specific details.

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 tool's purpose: 'Analyse a user's bidirectional integration requirement and produce a complete, structured integration plan.' It lists supported platform combinations and enumerates artifacts. It distinguishes from siblings by stating 'Call this FIRST before any create_integration_* tool.'

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Call this FIRST before any create_integration_* tool. Pass the result to the other tools to actually create the artifacts.' This provides clear ordering and context for usage.

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