Modify an Integration

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

Annotations already signal destructive and non-idempotent behavior; description adds specific side effects: 'may notify recipients or change tenant data' and the operator write opt-in requirement. This goes beyond the boolean hints and gives concrete consequences. No contradiction with 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 dense with endpoint, body fields, reference, and authorization notes, but it is still readable and front-loaded with the core purpose. The body field list is lengthy but necessary for a free-form schema. Could be better organized with bullets, but acceptable.

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 mutation tool with complex body requirements, the description covers endpoint, required fields, side effects, and auth. However, it lacks guidance on expected response or error conditions, and the meaning of 'change tenant data' is vague. Still, given no output schema, the description is reasonably complete.

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?

The schema treats body as a generic JSON blob, so the description's explicit list of body fields (id, form, name, integrationType, etc.) is essential. It also reinforces the confirm:true requirement and identifies planId in the endpoint path. This significantly compensates for the schema's low specificity on body.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Modify an Integration' with HTTP POST endpoint. Clearly distinguishes itself from sibling create/delete/get integration tools through the modification verb. No ambiguity about what resource it acts on.

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 on when to use this tool versus create/delete alternatives. It only provides a caution about opt-in and confirm, not decision context or exclusions. An agent would have to infer that modification is for existing integrations.

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