update_integration_setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool. It never says whether the URL replaces an existing one, whether other integration settings are preserved, whether authentication or an existing integration is required, or what the call returns on success.

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?

Two short sentences with the verb and the target field front-loaded; nothing is padded. The second sentence largely duplicates the schema's parameter description, which is the only minor 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 one-parameter, fully documented schema this is close to sufficient — an agent knows what to send. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description should have covered the write's effect (overwrite semantics, required pre-existing integration), which is the remaining gap.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema coverage is 100%; the schema already documents return_url as the webhook notification URL with URI format and a max length. The description's second sentence merely restates that schema text, adding no new constraint or format detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Update integration configuration") and names the single configurable field, the webhook/return URL. It does not mention the sibling get_integration_setup, so the read-vs-write distinction is left to inference, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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 only implies when to use it ("Set the webhook URL that receives notifications when a search completes"). It gives no prerequisites, no note that get_integration_setup can be used to read the current value first, and no guidance on what happens if an integration is not yet configured.

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