Create Integration Package

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ALLOW_WRITE permission requirement, which is a valuable behavioral constraint. However, it doesn't mention idempotency, response behavior, or what happens if the id already exists. The permission note adds some context but the disclosure is minimal.

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: two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to parse.

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?

With 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the confirm requirement, field semantics, or what to expect on success (e.g., a return value). The minimal text leaves significant gaps for a creation tool.

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 40%, and the description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't explain the meaning of 'name', 'shortText', 'description', or the 'confirm' flag. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not.

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 'Create a new integration package' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list, get, delete, and copy. This unambiguously communicates the tool's function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The verb 'create' implies use for new packages, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites (beyond ALLOW_WRITE), or references to alternative tools.

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