Create an integration

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it may notify recipients or change tenant data, and requires explicit confirmation and an operator write opt-in. This gives the agent a clearer risk profile without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the action, gives the endpoint, lists body fields, provides a reference, and states requirements and side effects. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or 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?

For a destructive create operation with no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, body fields, authentication prerequisite, confirmation requirement, and side effects. It stops short of describing the response shape or required subfields within the body, but the reference link and field list make it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 75%, and the description adds substantial value by enumerating the expected body fields (form, name, integrationType, environment, operation, triggeredBy, authenticationType, createdBy, deployed, script, endpoint, integrationService), which is critical because the body schema is a generic any-JSON type. It also reinforces the confirm:true requirement.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create an integration') and gives the exact endpoint, making the tool's function unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like xmatters_modify_an_integration, xmatters_delete_an_integration, and xmatters_get_integrations.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: creating a new integration via POST to the plans endpoint. It also gives important prerequisites ('Requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true') and warns about side effects, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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