update_http_integration

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds valuable context: it discloses the PATCH semantics (only provided fields sent) and the write-permission requirement. This goes beyond annotations and is consistent with them.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, then the behavioral nuance and permission. No wasted words; efficiently structured.

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?

With 25 parameters, no output schema, and only a generic mention of partial updates, the description is too thin. It does not cover expected response behavior, parameter constraints, or field formats, leaving agents with insufficient context for a complex mutation tool.

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 only 4% (only integration_id is described). The description mentions 'fields' generically but does not explain any specific parameter. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the 24 other parameters largely undefined.

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 verb ('Update'), the resource ('Custom HTTP Delivery integration'), and the method ('via PATCH'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_http_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?

It explains the partial-update behavior and the permission requirement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., create vs update). The context of siblings implies usage, but no explicit routing is given.

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