integration_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly lists authorization requirements and describes stub behavior (refuses with details on what's missing and how to implement). It does not mention side effects or return formats, but for an API call tool the prerequisites and error behavior are significant and helpful.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The remaining sentences pack dense but useful information about prerequisites and stub behavior. It is slightly cryptic in phrasing ('Declared stubs refuse with...') but every sentence contributes value.

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?

The tool has six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, making it relatively complex. The description covers authorization prerequisites but omits parameter semantics, return values, and realistic failure modes (e.g., network errors, invalid adapter). This is a significant completeness gap for an agent that must invoke the tool 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters (app_id, name, method, path, params, body). While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema and fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Call an external API through a registered integration adapter.' This distinguishes it from sibling integration tools like integration_list and integration_status, which serve different purposes.

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 explicit preconditions for use—the three required keys (integration_net capability, operator consent, egress lease)—which effectively tells the agent when it can be used. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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