create_http_integration

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Create' is consistent. The description adds the write-permission requirement and the extra_fields merge behavior, which are useful context. It doesn't address idempotency or failure modes, but with annotations covering the core safety profile, this is adequate.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and type. The permission note and extra_fields hint are useful, though the extra_fields detail partially duplicates schema content. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 24-parameter tool with a rich schema, the description covers the essentials: what is created, required fields, special-field routing, and permission. It doesn't describe return values or lifecycle configuration, but the schema already documents most parameters, and this is a straightforward create operation.

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 75%, so the schema carries most parameter documentation. The description reinforces required name/url and summarizes the purpose of extra_fields, but this largely echoes existing schema descriptions for those fields. It adds little new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Create'), a specific resource ('Custom HTTP Delivery integration'), and the type discriminator ('type=http'). It also names the required fields, which anchors exactly what the tool does. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_http_integration, get_integration, and delete_integration.

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 gives clear actionable context: this creates a new integration, name and url are required, and extra_fields is the channel for OAuth and lifecycle extras. It also notes the write-permission prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly contrast with update_http_integration or state when not to use it, but the create/update split is clear from the name and the guidance is sufficient.

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