update_integration

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

The description warns that key/config changes take effect immediately and can disrupt dependent providers or live requests, implying destructive potential. However, annotations set destructiveHint=false, creating a direct contradiction. Per rules, score 1 for contradiction.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose and immediate behavioral warning. No redundant information.

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?

Covers main purpose and critical behavioral warning. Does not explicitly mention that slug is required or that integration must exist, but these are captured in schema and annotations. Output schema exists, so return format is covered. Minor gaps remain.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 13 parameters. The description only mentions 'name, key, or provider-specific config' generically, adding no semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and resource 'integration', and lists specific attributes (name, key, provider-specific config). It distinguishes from siblings like create_integration (creates new) and delete_integration (deletes) by nature of update operation.

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 implies use for modifying existing integrations, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives (e.g., recreating vs updating). No exclusions or context for contrary cases.

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