create_mcp_integration

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open-world. The description adds behavioral context: it is a creation operation, returns id and slug, and imposes conditional requirement for custom_headers. This goes beyond annotations but does not fully explain side effects or idempotency.

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 main purpose, and every sentence adds essential information without 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?

The tool has many parameters and an output schema. The description explains the main output (id and slug) and hints at the multi-step process (follow with create_mcp_server and capability updates). It could be improved by explicitly linking input parameters to the workflow, but given schema coverage, it is fairly 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?

Input schema covers all 8 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds cross-parameter logic (custom_headers required when auth_type is headers) and context about follow-up tools, which provides value beyond individual parameter meanings.

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 creates an MCP integration from an external server URL, registers the connection, and returns id and slug. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'create_mcp_server' by indicating it is a prerequisite step.

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 specifies when to use the tool (creating an MCP integration) and provides conditions (custom_headers required for auth_type headers). It also advises following with create_mcp_server and capability updates, offering clear usage guidance and alternatives.

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